Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, 32885-32909 [2015-13718]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32885-32909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13718]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 10-210; FCC 15-58]


Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its rules 
to continue the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program 
(NDBEDP) on a permanent basis. The NDBEDP is currently a pilot program 
that supports the distribution of communications devices to low-income 
individuals who are deaf-blind.

DATES: Comments are due July 27, 2015 and reply comments are due August 
10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 10-210, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions 
provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in 
completing the

[[Page 32886]]

transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal 
service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 10-210.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the 
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal 
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

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, Disability Rights Office, at 202-418-2075 
or email Rosaline.Crawford@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     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. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial Mail sent by 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.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 15-58, 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 
Individuals, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), adopted on May 21, 
2015 and released on May 27, 2015, in CG Docket No. 10-210. The full 
text of document FCC 15-58 will be available for public inspection and 
copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 15-58 can also be downloaded 
in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/ndbedp.
    This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200 et seq. 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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) 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.
    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), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 15-58 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that 
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the 
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the 
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting 
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In the (NPRM), the Commission seeks comment on proposed rules to 
govern the NDBEDP on a permanent basis. The NDBEDP supports programs 
that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who 
are deaf-blind. The NDBEDP has operated as a pilot program since July 
2012.

II. Background

    2. Section 105 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) added section 719 to the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which directed the Commission 
to establish rules to provide up to $10 million annually from the 
Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund) to support 
programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income 
individuals who are deaf-blind. Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 
(2010); Public Law 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010); 47 U.S.C. 620. In 
2011, the Commission established the NDBEDP as a two-year pilot 
program, with an option to extend it for an additional year. 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 
Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210, Report and Order, published at 76 FR 
26641, May 9, 2011 (NDBEDP Pilot Program Order); 47 CFR 64.610 (NDBEDP 
pilot program rules). The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB 
or Bureau) launched the pilot program on July 1, 2012. To implement the 
program, the Bureau certified 53 entities to participate in the

[[Page 32887]]

NDBEDP--one entity to distribute equipment in each state, plus the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
hereinafter referred to as ``state programs'' or ``certified 
programs''--and selected a national outreach coordinator to support the 
outreach and distribution efforts of these state programs. On February 
7, 2014, the Bureau extended the pilot program for a third year, until 
June 30, 2015. Many individuals who received communications devices 
through the NDBEDP have reported that this program has vastly improved 
their daily lives, significantly enhancing their ability to live 
independently and expanding their educational and employment 
opportunities.
    3. On August 1, 2014, the Bureau released a Public Notice inviting 
comment on which rules governing the NDBEDP pilot program should be 
retained and which should be modified to make the permanent NDBEDP more 
effective and more efficient. Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
Seeks Comment on the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution 
Program, CG Docket No. 10-210, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 9451 (CGB 
2014). Comments filed in response to the Public Notice helped to inform 
the preparation of the NPRM. The Commission proposes to retain the 
NDBEDP pilot program rules for the permanent program, except as 
discussed in the NPRM.
    4. On May 21, 2015, the Commission extended the pilot program for 
one additional year, until June 30, 2016. Implementation of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket No. 
10-210, Order, FCC 15-57 (rel. May 27, 2015). The Commission commits to 
continue the pilot NDBEDP as long as necessary to ensure a seamless 
transition between the pilot and permanent programs to ensure the 
uninterrupted distribution of equipment to this target population. When 
the Commission adopts final rules for the permanent program it will 
consider the extent to which the pilot program needs to be extended 
further. The Commission invites comment on the need to extend the pilot 
program beyond June 30, 2016.
    5. In establishing a permanent NDBEDP, the Commission also seeks 
comment on performance goals for all elements of the program along with 
performance measures that are clearly linked to each performance goal. 
Specifically, the Commission proposes the following goals: (1) Ensuring 
that the program effectively increases access to covered services by 
the target population; (2) ensuring that the program is administered 
efficiently; and (3) ensuring that the program is cost-effective. Funds 
available through the program come from contributions made by 
telecommunications service providers to the TRS Fund, and the 
Commission has a responsibility to ensure these funds are spent 
efficiently and effectively. Ensuring that certified programs use 
available funds in cost-effective ways maximizes the impact of program 
funds and helps ensure that as many eligible recipients as possible are 
able to receive the support they need. The Commission believes that 
clear performance goals and measures will enable it to determine 
whether the program is being used for its intended purpose and whether 
the funding for the program is accomplishing the intended results. To 
the extent that these proposed goals or other goals that commenters may 
propose may be in tension with each other, commenters should suggest 
how the Commission should prioritize or balance them. The Commission 
invites comment on what performance measures it should adopt to support 
these proposed goals, and whether it should adopt measures based on the 
information that certified programs are required to report to the 
Commission. The Commission also seeks comment on ways to manage and 
share data to track our progress in meeting these goals. Finally, the 
Commission proposes to periodically review whether it is making 
progress in addressing these goals by measuring the specific outcomes.

III. Program Structure

A. Certified Programs
    6. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission certifies one 
entity per state as the sole authorized entity to participate in the 
NDBEDP and receive support from the TRS Fund for the distribution of 
equipment and provision of related services to low-income individuals 
who are deaf-blind. Certified programs have primary oversight and 
responsibility for compliance with program requirements, but may 
fulfill their responsibilities directly or through collaboration, 
partnership, or contract with other individuals or entities within or 
outside of their states or territories. Services related to the 
distribution of equipment include outreach, assessment, installation, 
and training. Certified programs also perform administrative functions, 
including submitting reimbursement claims and reports, and conducting 
annual audits.
    7. The Commission proposes to retain the current structure of the 
NDBEDP, certifying one entity to be responsible for the administration 
of the program, distribution of equipment, and provision of related 
services within each of the states and territories covered by the 
NDBEDP. The Commission believes that the localized approach that has 
been in place for almost three years has been successful in meeting the 
needs of eligible low-income individuals who are deaf-blind and that 
state entities are more likely to be familiar with their unique 
demographics and their available resources, and consequently are in a 
better position to respond to the localized needs of their residents. 
The Commission also believes that greater efficiencies and expanded 
capabilities can be achieved through a centralized database for 
reporting and reimbursement and through greater support for training, 
discussed further in the NPRM, without having to restructure the 
program from a state-based to a national system. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach.
    8. Thus far, 10 of the 53 state programs have relinquished their 
certifications, requiring the Commission to seek replacements in those 
states. The Commission recognizes that some adjustments have had to be 
made during the pilot program, a result that was not unexpected given 
that the NDBEDP is an entirely new program. However, on balance, the 
Commission believes that the success of NDBEDP, as evidenced by the 
delivery of equipment and services to thousands of deaf-blind 
individuals, shows that the system has been working well. To help 
reduce the incidence of program departures, as discussed further in the 
NPRM, the Commission proposes to establish a centralized database to 
facilitate the filing of reimbursement claims and semi-annual reports 
to the Commission. In addition, to minimize the risk of a lapse in 
service to deaf-blind individuals that might result during any future 
transitions from one certified state program to another, the Commission 
proposes that a certified program seeking to relinquish its 
certification provide written notice to the Commission at least 90 days 
in advance of its intent to do so. Further, the Commission proposes 
that such entities be required to transfer NDBEDP-purchased equipment, 
information, files, and other data to the newly-certified entity in its 
state within 30 days after the effective date of its certification to 
ensure a smooth transition and reduce any potential for a lapse in 
service. Finally, the

[[Page 32888]]

Commission proposes requiring that all entities relinquishing their 
certifications comply with NDBEDP requirements necessary for the 
ongoing functioning of the program that they are exiting, including the 
submission of final reimbursement claims and six-month reports. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as well as other steps 
that the Commission should take to reduce the number of entities that 
relinquish their certifications and measures the Commission should 
adopt to minimize the impact on consumers when this occurs.
    9. For the pilot program, the Bureau selected entities to 
participate in the NDBEDP that were located within and outside of the 
states that they served. Currently, of the 53 certified programs, 33 
are administered by entities located within the states they serve and 
20 are administered by entities located outside those states. For all 
but three of these 20 programs, the out-of-state entity selected was 
the sole applicant. The Commission proposes to continue allowing 
qualified out-of-state entities, in addition to in-state entities, to 
apply for certification to administer the NDBEDP, in collaboration with 
individuals or entities within or outside of their states or 
territories. It believes that this flexible approach assists those 
states that may not have sufficient resources on their own to provide 
the services required by the NDBEDP. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal and any alternatives that would ensure that the NDBEDP is 
able to serve the residents of each state.
    10. The Commission authorized the NDBEDP pilot program to operate 
in each of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, noting that each of these jurisdictions 
administered an intrastate TRS program. The Commission reached this 
result because, like the TRS state programs, the NDBEDP certified 
programs are supported by the TRS Fund. Because residents of American 
Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are also eligible to make 
and receive calls through one or more forms of relay services that are 
supported by the TRS Fund, the Commission proposes to expand the 
operation of the NDBEDP to these jurisdictions. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal, particularly from interested stakeholders who 
reside in these three territories, including entities that provide 
services to deaf-blind individuals.
B. Certification Criteria
    11. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, the Bureau reviews 
applications and determines whether to grant NDBEDP certification based 
on the ability of a program to meet the following qualifications, 
either directly or in coordination with other programs or entities, as 
evidenced in the application and any supplemental materials, including 
letters of recommendation: (i) expertise in the field of deaf-
blindness; (ii) the ability to communicate effectively with people who 
are deaf-blind; (iii) staffing and facilities sufficient to administer 
the program; (iv) experience with the distribution of specialized 
customer premises equipment; (v) experience in how to train users on 
how to set up and use the equipment; and (vi) familiarity with the 
telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications 
services that will be used with the distributed equipment. The 
Commission believes that these criteria have been effective in 
informing the Bureau's selection of qualified entities and proposes to 
retain these criteria to evaluate an entity's qualifications for 
certification as a state program. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    12. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how it can 
supplement these criteria to better ensure that certain certified 
programs serve the full spectrum of people who are deaf-blind. Should 
the Commission establish minimum standards for the personnel providing 
services in these programs? For example, should individuals providing 
service have certain levels of linguistic competency? The Commission 
asks commenters to describe any difficulties they have experienced 
securing equipment or services from their state's certified program 
resulting from a lack of expertise in deaf-blindness or communications 
skills, and to be specific in recommending changes that may be 
necessary in the Commission's certification criteria to reduce these 
difficulties.
    13. The Commission also seeks comment on the addition of 
certification criteria that address the ability of certified programs 
to administer a statewide program, the capacity to manage the financial 
requirements of a state program, expertise in assistive technology, and 
experience with equipment distribution capabilities. In particular, the 
Commission proposes to add administrative and financial management 
experience to the requirements for certification. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. Should applicants also be required to 
demonstrate that they are capable of operating a statewide program or 
that they follow standard financial principles? To what extent would 
such requirements strengthen the NDBEDP? For example, would these 
reduce the likelihood of selected entities relinquishing their 
certification before completion of their terms? Conversely, would 
requiring such skills exclude too many otherwise qualified applicants? 
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other criteria that should 
be added to ensure the selection of certified entities that will be 
both responsive to the deaf-blind community's needs and capable of 
achieving full compliance with the Commission's NDBEDP rules.
    14. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission prohibited 
certified programs from accepting financial arrangements from a vendor 
that could incentivize the purchase of particular equipment. The 
Commission continues to believe that such incentives could impede a 
certified program's ability to provide equipment that fully meets the 
unique needs of the deaf-blind persons it is serving. In addition to 
this rule, the Commission also requested that applicants for NDBEDP 
certification disclose in their initial certification application and 
thereafter, as necessary, any actual or potential conflicts of interest 
with manufacturers or providers of equipment that may be distributed 
under the NDBEDP. The Commission proposes to require such disclosures 
in applications for initial and continued certification under the 
permanent NDBEDP. To the extent that financial arrangements in which 
the applicant is a part create the risk of impeding the applicant's 
objectivity in the distribution of equipment or compliance with NDBEDP 
requirements--such as when the applicant is partially or wholly owned 
by an equipment manufacturer or vendor--the Commission proposes that it 
reject such applicant for NDBEDP certification. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal.
C. Duration of Certification
    15. At present, all NDBEDP programs are certified for the duration 
of the pilot program. Consistent with the TRS certification rules for 
state TRS providers, to improve program accountability, and avoid 
unnecessary administrative burdens that may result from a certification 
period of two or three years, the Commission proposes that NDBEDP 
programs be certified for a period of five years. The Commission seeks 
comment on alternative timeframes other than five years including 
shorter timeframes, and asks about the pros and cons of opening the 
window up earlier than every five years.

[[Page 32889]]

In the event that a certified program decides not to seek re-
certification at the end of its five-year term, the Commission proposes 
requiring that such entities transfer NDBEDP-purchased equipment, 
information, files, and other data to the newly-certified entity in its 
state within 30 days after the effective date of certification of the 
new entity to ensure a smooth transition and reduce any potential for a 
lapse in service. This is consistent with the Commission's proposal to 
require the transfer of such materials when a certified program 
relinquishes its certification during its five-year term, discussed in 
the NPRM. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
D. Certification Renewals
    16. Because the permanent NDBEDP may have some rule modifications, 
the Commission believes that it is appropriate to require each such 
entity to demonstrate its ability to meet all of the selection criteria 
anew, and to affirm its commitment to comply with all Commission rules 
governing the permanent program. Accordingly, the Commission proposes 
requiring that each entity certified under the pilot program re-apply 
for certification or notify the Commission of its intent not to 
participate under the permanent program within 30 days after the 
effective date of the permanent rules. The rules will be effective upon 
notice in the Federal Register announcing Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal. Alternatively, should the Commission require each entity 
to certify that it continues to satisfy all current certification 
criteria that the Commission retains under the permanent NDBEDP, to 
demonstrate its ability to meet any new criteria the Commission may 
establish, and to affirm its commitment to comply with the permanent 
NDBEDP rules that the Commission adopts? In addition, the Commission 
proposes to permit other entities to apply for certification as the 
sole authorized entity for a state to distribute equipment under the 
NDBEDP during the 30-day time period following the effective date of 
the permanent rules. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    17. Consistent with the Commission's requirements for TRS 
providers, the Commission proposes to require each state program, once 
certified, to report any substantive change to its program within 60 
days of when such change occurs. The Commission proposes that 
substantive changes include those that might bear on the qualifications 
of the entity to meet the Commission's criteria for certification, such 
as changes in the entity's ability to distribute equipment across its 
state or significant changes in its staff and facilities. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the types of substantive 
changes that should trigger such notice to the Commission. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which this requirement 
would help to ensure that programs continue to meet the Commission's 
criteria for certification when substantial changes are made.
    18. Finally, the Commission proposes that one year prior to the 
expiration of each five-year certification period, a certified program 
intending to stay in the NDBEDP be required to request renewal of its 
certification by submitting to the Commission an application with 
sufficient detail to demonstrate its continued ability to meet all 
criteria required for certification, either directly or in coordination 
with other programs or entities. This approach is consistent with the 
TRS certification rules for state TRS providers. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. In addition, the Commission proposes to 
permit other entities to apply for certification as the sole authorized 
entity for a state to distribute equipment under the NDBEDP one year 
prior to the expiration of a certified entity's five-year certification 
period. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
E. Notifying Consumers About State Program Changes
    19. Under the pilot program rules, the Commission may suspend or 
revoke a certification if it determines that such certification is no 
longer warranted after notice and opportunity for hearing. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether, in place of an opportunity for an 
administrative hearing, there are alternatives that would provide 
programs an opportunity to be heard, such as a reasonable time to 
present views or objections to the Commission in writing before 
suspension or decertification. The Commission's interest in finding an 
alternative stems from its concern that a requirement for a hearing 
could unintentionally result in eligible residents being denied 
equipment pending this administrative action. Would providing a program 
with reasonable time to present its views and objections to the 
Commission in writing satisfy due process requirements and enable the 
Commission to take action without undue delay?
    20. The Commission has not initiated any decertification 
proceedings under the pilot program. When state programs have 
voluntarily relinquished their certifications, the Bureau has released 
public notices to invite applications to replace these entities, 
selected replacements after careful review of the applications 
received, and released a second public notice announcing the newly-
certified entities. In addition to releasing such public notices, 
should the Commission take other measures to notify consumers in the 
affected states when a certified entity exits the program and a 
replacement is selected? For example, should the Commission require the 
formerly certified entity to notify consumers in their states who 
received equipment or who have applied to receive equipment about the 
newly-certified entity? The Commission seeks comment on how best to 
ensure that consumers are aware when these changes are made to their 
state NDBEDP programs.
F. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement
    21. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, state programs must submit 
reimbursement claims to the TRS Fund Administrator and reports to the 
Commission. Currently, reports from state programs are presented to the 
Commission with inconsistent formatting, making aggregation of data 
difficult and inefficient. The Commission proposes that a centralized 
national database be created to assist state programs in the generation 
of their reports to the Commission, to enable the submission of those 
reports electronically to the NDBEDP Administrator, and to allow for 
the aggregation and analysis of nationwide data on the NDBEDP. To 
ensure that all of the information collected can be aggregated and 
analyzed for the effective and efficient operation of the NDBEDP, the 
Commission further proposes that, if the Commission adopts this 
approach, all certified programs be required to use the centralized 
database for their reporting obligations. The Commission seeks comment 
on these proposals. Do NDBEDP stakeholders agree that these advantages 
would accrue from utilizing a centralized database? The Commission also 
seeks comment generally on the costs and any other benefits or 
disadvantages that would be associated with both the establishment and 
maintenance of such a database. Further, the Commission seeks comment 
on any lessons learned from other experiences setting up databases and 
whether a centralized database

[[Page 32890]]

could be used for other purposes or programs.
    22. Much of the data needed to generate reimbursement claims is 
also required to generate the required reports. Because the data 
overlap, the Commission also proposes that the centralized database be 
available to assist state programs in generating their reimbursement 
claims for submission to the TRS Fund Administrator. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal. Would having the centralized database 
available to generate reimbursement claims lead to faster reimbursement 
and benefit state programs in other ways? The TRS Fund Administrator is 
currently able to aggregate reimbursement claim data, even in the 
absence of a centralized database. For this reason, the Commission 
proposes to enable and permit, but not require, certified programs to 
use the centralized database to generate reimbursement claims. 
Alternatively, would requiring all certified programs to use the 
centralized database for their claims make the process of aggregating 
reimbursement claim data more efficient? Could reimbursement claim data 
be transmitted electronically from the centralized database to the TRS 
Fund Administrator, along with the necessary supporting documentation? 
The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of utilizing the 
centralized database to facilitate the creation of reimbursement 
claims, as well as the best approach for utilizing this database to 
ensure the effective and efficient oversight of the permanent NDBEDP.
    23. The Commission also seeks comment about the type of data that 
state programs should be required to input into a centralized database. 
In order for state programs to generate reimbursement claims under the 
pilot NDBEDP, they must submit the costs of equipment and related 
expenses (including maintenance, repairs, warranties, refurbishing, 
upgrading, and replacing equipment distributed to consumers); 
assessments; equipment installation and consumer training; loaner 
equipment; state outreach efforts; and program administration. Should 
this same data be entered into the database? Are there other types of 
data that should be populated into the database for the purpose of 
generating reimbursement claims? Similarly, what data should be input 
by state programs to the database to effectively generate reports about 
state program activities? Under the Commission's current rules, state 
programs must report to the Commission information about equipment 
recipients and the people attesting that those individuals are deaf-
blind; the equipment distributed; the cost, time and other resources 
allocated to various activities; the amount of time between assessment 
and equipment delivery; the types of state outreach undertaken; the 
nature of equipment upgrades; a summary of equipment requests denied 
and complaints received; and the number of qualified applicants on 
waiting lists to receive equipment. To the extent that the Commission 
continues requiring that such data be reported in the permanent NDBEDP, 
should certified programs be required to input all of this data into 
the centralized database?
    24. Should certain data be excluded from the centralized database, 
and if so, why? For example, even though the Commission complies with 
the requirements of the Privacy Act with respect to the protection of 
personally identifiable information that the Commission receives in 
connection with the NDBEDP, would it be more appropriate for state 
programs to maintain records of names and addresses of their equipment 
recipients, along with the identity of the people who attest that those 
recipients are deaf-blind, rather than put this information into a 
centralized location? Should individuals who receive equipment instead 
be given a unique identifying number, which could be entered into the 
database in lieu of their names and other personally identifiable 
information? Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether any 
certified program may be prohibited by state regulation from storing 
data out of state and whether these prohibitions would prevent the 
input of the types of data described above--or any other related types 
of data--into a centralized database. Are there any other reasons that 
any of the currently certified programs would not be able to comply 
with requirements for the submission of such data into a centralized 
system? What are the costs and benefits of gathering the categories of 
information listed above?
    25. The Commission proposes to permit the NDBEDP Administrator and 
other appropriate FCC staff to search this database and generate 
reports to analyze nationwide data on the NDBEDP, and seeks comment on 
this proposal. To what extent should a certified program also be 
permitted access to the database to execute searches of data that it 
did not input into the database? For example, if the Commission permits 
entry of data on deaf-blind individuals receiving equipment, should a 
certified program be permitted to conduct a search to determine whether 
the applicant is receiving equipment and services from another state? 
Similarly, should a certified program be permitted to access the 
database to determine the types of equipment being distributed by other 
states or the length of time typically used for assessments and 
training by other certified programs? The Commission proposes that 
access to the NDBEDP centralized database be limited to authorized 
entities, and be permitted only under tightly controlled conditions. To 
ensure the privacy and confidentiality of financial and other sensitive 
information about consumers that may be entered into the database, the 
Commission seeks comment on which entities and under what conditions 
those entities should be permitted access to the database. The 
Commission proposes that the database administrator be tasked with 
establishing procedures, protocols, and other safeguards, such as 
password protection and encryption, to ensure database access is in 
fact restricted according to the Commission's guidelines. The 
Commission seeks comment on this approach, and the extent to which the 
NDBEDP Administrator should be given some discretion to determine when 
entities other than the Administrator or FCC staff can access the 
database.
    26. Decisions regarding information to be included in a centralized 
database used for administration of the program and the individuals who 
may be granted access to the database can raise questions regarding 
compliance with Government-wide statutory and regulatory guidance with 
respect to privacy issues and the use of information technology. 
Parties commenting on the centralized database should ensure that their 
recommendations are consistent with Government-wide privacy and 
information technology statutory and regulatory guidance.
    27. The Perkins School for the Blind (Perkins), which provides 
database services for 32 certified programs, estimated that the cost of 
establishing and maintaining an NDBEDP centralized database will be 
between $285,000 and $380,000 annually. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this amount of funding will be sufficient to perform the 
proposed functions of the database, and whether there will be start-up 
costs that result in higher costs during the first year of the 
database's operations. If the Commission does not develop its own 
database for the NDBEDP, the Commission proposes to authorize the 
Bureau to set aside up to

[[Page 32891]]

$380,000 per year from the NDBEDP's annual allocation for the 
development of the database during the last year of the pilot program 
to enable the implementation of the database functions for the 
permanent NDBEDP in a timely manner. If this approach is adopted, 
certified programs now paying to use an existing database, the costs of 
which are currently assessed against their 15% cap on administrative 
costs, would no longer need to do so. At the same time, the Commission 
proposes that certified programs continue to be permitted to seek 
reimbursement for the time spent entering data into and generating 
reports and reimbursement claims from the database as part of their 
administrative costs, up to the 15% cap. The Commission seeks comment 
on these various proposals.
    28. As an alternative to undertaking the development and 
maintenance of an NDBEDP database using existing staff and resources, 
the Commission will also consider a variety of approaches to satisfy 
the program requirements. For example, the Commission could engage 
another agency with information technology experience to provide 
administrative support for the program including database development 
and maintenance through an Interagency agreement. The Commission could 
also procure the database through a competitive procurement. In 
addition, the Commission may evaluate whether to modify a contract with 
an existing contractor to satisfy the program requirements--either 
through direct performance by the main contractor or a subcontractor. 
Or the Commission may wish to invite entities, via a public notice, to 
submit applications for the development and maintenance of a 
centralized database, from which the Commission would then select a 
database administrator. The Commission will consider using a 
combination of any of these in-house, regulatory, or procurement 
strategies where efficient and lawful to do so.
    29. Regardless of the precise mechanism chosen for obtaining a 
centralized database for the program, the Commission seeks input on the 
performance goals along with performance measures that should be used 
for this project. Other issues on which the Commission seeks input 
include the implementation schedule for the work; budget for the first 
three years of work related to the development and maintenance of the 
database; prerequisite experience needed for staff employed in creating 
and managing a complex database capable of receiving large amounts of 
data. The Commission also seeks input regarding database query and data 
mining capabilities; and database design best practices to ensure that 
certified programs can generate reimbursement claims and submit them 
electronically to the TRS Fund Administrator using the database. The 
Commission also seeks input on the report functionality required for 
the database; and best practices with respect to data management, 
security, privacy, confidentiality, backup, and accessibility, 
including compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

IV. Consumer Eligibility

A. Definition of Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind
    30. To participate in the NDBEDP, the CVAA requires that 
individuals must be ``deaf-blind,'' as that term is defined in the 
Helen Keller National Center Act (HKNC Act). 29 U.S.C. 1905(2). The 
Commission's NDBEDP pilot program rules also direct NDBEDP certified 
programs to consider an individual's functional abilities with respect 
to using telecommunications, advanced communications, and Internet 
access services in various environments when determining whether an 
individual is ``deaf-blind.'' The Commission proposes to retain this 
definition and seeks comment on this proposal.
B. Verification of Disability
    31. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require that individuals seeking 
equipment under the NDBEDP must provide disability verification from a 
professional (e.g., community-based service provider, vision or hearing 
related professional, vocational rehabilitation counselor, educator, 
and medical or health professional) who has direct knowledge of and can 
attest to the individual's disability. Such professionals must attest, 
either to the best of their knowledge or under penalty of perjury, that 
the applicant is an individual who is deaf-blind, as that term is 
defined in the Commission's rules. A disability verification must 
include the attester's name, title, and contact information, including 
address, phone number, and email address. As verification of 
disability, certified programs may also accept documentation already in 
the applicant's possession, such as individualized education programs 
and Social Security determination letters. The Commission tentatively 
concludes that the Commission should retain the current requirements 
for verification of disability from a professional with direct 
knowledge or through documentation already in the applicant's 
possession, and seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. 
Nonetheless, the Commission seeks comment on whether a professional's 
attestation that an individual is deaf-blind should include the basis 
of the attesting professional's knowledge. The Commission also proposes 
that the disability verification must include the professional's full 
name, title, and contact information, including business address, phone 
number, and email address. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. Finally, the Commission asks whether certified programs 
should be required to re-verify an individual's disability eligibility 
each time the recipient applies for new equipment, or whether there is 
a period of time after an initial verification that such verification 
should be deemed sufficient to prove disability in the event that the 
recipient seeks additional equipment. For this purpose, the Commission 
proposes to require certified programs to re-verify an individual's 
disability eligibility when the individual applies for new equipment 
three years or more after the program last verified the individual's 
disability. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
C. Income Eligibility
    32. To participate in the NDBEDP, the CVAA requires that 
individuals must be ``low income.'' The NDBEDP pilot program rules 
define low-income individuals as having ``an income that does not 
exceed 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG).'' 47 CFR 
64.610(d)(2). In addition, the Bureau has provided guidance to state 
programs that defines ``income'' as all income received by all members 
of a household, and defines a ``household'' as any individual or group 
of individuals who are living together at the same address as one 
economic unit.
    33. The Commission seeks comment on how to define the ``low 
income'' threshold for purposes of eligibility in the permanent 
program. Should it, for example, continue to use a threshold of 400% of 
the FPG like it did in the pilot program? The Commission is sensitive 
to concerns about the high cost of medical and disability-related 
expenses for this population, as well as the high cost of the equipment 
that these consumers need. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the 
Commission concluded ``that the unusually high medical and disability-
related costs incurred by individuals who are deaf-blind . . . together 
with the extraordinarily high costs of specialized [customer premises 
equipment] typically needed by this population,

[[Page 32892]]

support an income eligibility rule of 400 percent of the FPG for the 
NDBEDP pilot program. In order to give this program the meaning 
intended by Congress--`to ensure that individuals with disabilities are 
able to utilize fully the essential advanced technologies that have 
developed since the passage of the ADA and subsequent statutes 
addressing communications accessibility'--we must adopt an income 
threshold that takes into account these unusually high medical and 
disability-related expenses, which significantly lower one's disposable 
income.''
    34. The Commission notes that, in 2013, the median household income 
in the United States was $52,250. Can the Commission define a household 
as ``low income'' if its income exceeds the median? Should the 
Commission use the median as a cap on eligibility, or just adopt the 
median as a threshold? Alternatively, how do other federal programs 
define ``low income'' households? For example, the FCC's low-income 
universal service program (known as Lifeline) defines a household as 
low income only if it is below 135% of the FPG (or the household 
qualifies for one of several federal low-income programs). Should the 
Commission adopt that threshold here? What effect would adjusting the 
income eligibility threshold have on otherwise-eligible deaf-blind 
individuals? As the program approaches the maximum funding level each 
year, what effect would adjusting the income eligibility threshold have 
on prioritizing scarce resources?
    35. The Commission seeks comment on whether ``taxable income''--
rather than total, gross, or net income--be used to determine 
eligibility, while retaining the limitation that such income not be 
greater than 400% of the FPG. For these purposes, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether the term ``taxable income'' should be defined as 
gross income minus allowable deductions, as defined by the U.S. Tax 
Code. In other words, taxable income for the purposes of the NDBEDP 
would be the amount that is used to compute the amount of tax due. The 
amount of tax due may be offset further by tax credits, but tax credits 
do not alter the amount of your taxable income. The Commission seeks 
comment on how to address non-disability related exemptions or 
exclusions in the tax code. For example, should otherwise-non-taxable 
municipal-bond income be included in a household's taxable income for 
purposes of eligibility? Should mortgage-interest deductions or state-
income-tax deductions be included? The Commission asks whether this 
modification appropriately considers an applicant's disability-related 
and medical expenses, given that taxable income includes allowable 
deductions for such expenses for individuals who itemize their 
deductions. For those individuals who do not itemize deductions, in 
addition to the basic standard deduction, an additional standard 
deduction is permitted for individuals who are blind, which may help to 
ameliorate the burden of additional expenses incurred by such 
individuals and result in less taxable income. The Commission asks for 
comment as to whether this would address these cost concerns, without 
conflicting with statutory limitations and congressional intent, or if 
there are other proposals that might achieve this goal. The Commission 
also asks whether this approach will impose any additional 
administrative burdens on either the certified programs or consumers, 
and whether those burdens are justified by the benefits of adopting 
these financial eligibility criteria. The Commission also seeks comment 
on how other federal programs define income for determining whether a 
household is ``low income'' and whether any other federal program uses 
``taxable income'' for that purpose.
    36. The Commission also addresses concerns about its use of 
household income in lieu of personal income to determine income 
eligibility for the NDBEDP, because the former can result in 
disqualification of adult applicants who live in multi-person 
households and other adult applicants who are not dependent 
financially. The Commission proposes to clarify that multiple adults 
living together as roommates or in a multi-person home are not an 
``economic unit'' and therefore not a ``household'' for purposes of 
determining income eligibility. An ``economic unit'' consists of all 
adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and 
expenses of a household. In situations where an adult applicant lives 
in a multi-person home but does not have access to the financial 
resources of others, he or she is not ``contributing to and sharing in 
the income and expenses'' of the group but instead maintaining 
financially distinct identities despite a shared living space. In 
contrast, where an adult applicant is financially dependent on another 
adult or their finances are intertwined (as with a spouse), the incomes 
of all members of that household must be considered. The Commission 
asks for comment on this approach or alternatives to this approach that 
would be consistent with the congressional mandate requiring the NDBEDP 
to serve only low-income individuals.
D. Verification of Income Eligibility
    37. The NDBEDP pilot program rules allow automatic income 
eligibility for individuals enrolled in federal subsidy programs with 
income thresholds that do not exceed 400% of the FPG. When applicants 
are not already enrolled in a qualifying low-income program, low-income 
eligibility must be verified by the certified program using appropriate 
and reasonable means, for example, by reviewing the individual's most 
recent income tax return.
    38. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should continue 
permitting individuals enrolled in federal subsidy programs with income 
thresholds lower than 400% of the FPG to be deemed income eligible for 
the NDBEDP. The Commission believes that this approach is reasonable 
and reliable, simplifies the income verification process for applicants 
and certified programs, and is consistent with the approach adopted for 
its Universal Service low-income program. Further, the Commission 
proposes to continue to require certified programs to verify low-income 
eligibility using appropriate and reasonable means, for example, by 
reviewing the individual's most recent income tax return, when 
applicants are not already enrolled in a qualifying low-income program. 
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether a third-party should determine income eligibility 
just as the Commission proposes to retain the requirement for a third 
party to verify an individual's disability. If the Commission decides 
to use a third party to verify income, it seeks comment on whether this 
should be done by a state agency, such as during the time of enrollment 
in other programs, or through another mechanism. The Commission seeks 
comment on the potential impact on program applicants and the potential 
costs and benefits of doing so, including the potential administrative 
savings to the programs of relieving them of this responsibility. The 
Commission further notes that it's Universal Service low-income program 
lists, as acceptable documentation to prove income eligibility, ``the 
prior year's state, federal, or Tribal tax return; current income 
statement from an employer or paycheck stub; a Social Security 
statement of benefits; a Veterans Administration statement of benefits; 
a retirement/pension statement of benefits; an Unemployment/Workers' 
Compensation statement of benefit; federal or Tribal notice letter of

[[Page 32893]]

participation in General Assistance; or a divorce decree, child support 
award, or other official document containing income information.'' 47 
CFR 54.410(b)(1)(i)(B). Would these forms of documentation be 
appropriate to prove income eligibility for NDBEDP equipment 
recipients? Additionally, the Universal Service low-income program 
rules specify that, if the documentation presented ``does not cover a 
full year, such as current pay stubs, the [applicant] must present the 
same type of documentation covering three consecutive months within the 
previous twelve months.'' 47 CFR 54.410(b)(1)(i)(B). Should such 
eligibility criteria be applied across all certified programs 
nationwide? Finally, the Commission asks whether certified programs 
should be required to re-verify an equipment recipient's income 
eligibility when that individual applies for new equipment. Is there is 
a period of time following an initial verification that such income 
verification should be deemed sufficient if the recipient seeks 
additional equipment? For this purpose, the Commission proposes to 
require certified programs to re-verify an individual's income 
eligibility when the individual applies for new equipment one year or 
more after the program last verified the individual's income. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
E. Other Eligibility Criteria
    39. To ensure that the equipment provided will be usable, the 
Commission proposes to continue, under the permanent NDBEDP, to permit 
certified programs to require that NDBEDP equipment recipients 
demonstrate that they have access to the telecommunications, advanced 
communications, or Internet access services (Internet or phone service) 
that the equipment is designed to use and make accessible. Considering 
the unemployment and underemployment challenges of the population 
sought to be served by the NDBEDP, the Commission also proposes, under 
the permanent NDBEDP, to prohibit certified programs from imposing 
employment-related eligibility requirements for individuals to 
participate in the program. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposals.
    40. In the pilot NDBEDP, the Commission granted states considerable 
flexibility in deciding how best to distribute equipment and provide 
related services to as many of their eligible residents as possible, 
given their jurisdiction's demographics and the inherent constraints of 
NDBEDP funding allocations, qualified personnel, time, and other 
limited resources. The Commission proposes to continue following this 
approach because it believes it has been effective in allowing states 
to address the wide range of variability that exists within and between 
state populations and resources, as well as the diversity within the 
population of individuals who are deaf-blind. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. Should the Commission take measures to 
prioritize the use of funding in the event that demand for funding 
exceeds the $10 million funding limitation? If so, for what purpose and 
when should priorities be set? For example, should priorities be 
designed to maximize the number of equipment recipients per year or the 
number of new equipment recipients per year or both? Should the 
Commission consider taking measures to target the lowest-income 
individuals? For example, should the Commission consider lowering the 
income eligibility threshold? Should the Commission consider 
establishing caps on the amount of equipment or related services an 
individual may receive to achieve that goal? The Commission seeks 
comment on these or other alternatives the Commission should consider 
to maximize the number of low-income consumers who can receive 
equipment under the permanent program.
    41. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges a need for 
greater transparency with respect to any unique criteria or priorities 
used by state programs for the distribution of equipment and related 
services. The Commission, therefore, proposes that each certified 
program be required to make public on its Web site, if one is 
maintained by the certified program, or as part of its other local 
outreach efforts, a brief narrative description of any criteria or 
priorities that it uses to distribute equipment, as well as strategies 
established to ensure the fair distribution of equipment to eligible 
applicants within its jurisdiction. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this proposal would assist consumers to better understand what 
benefits they may be able to secure from their state programs. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the administrative burdens of 
such an approach would be outweighed by its benefits.
    42. The Commission cautions, however, that strategies to serve 
eligible applicants in a state must be consistent with the NDBEDP 
rules. For example, a certified program whose state education 
department provides deaf-blind students with all of the communications 
equipment and related services they need may determine that it should 
focus its NDBEDP resources to meet the needs of low-income deaf-blind 
adults. The Commission believes this would be consistent with the 
principle, adopted in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, that the NDBEDP 
is supplementing rather than supplanting other resources. However, a 
program restriction disallowing the distribution of equipment to any 
persons under the age of 18 could exclude otherwise eligible deaf-blind 
individuals in need of this equipment. The Commission tentatively 
concludes that state programs generally should not be permitted to 
adopt such sweeping limitations, and seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion. In addition, the Commission proposes to require certified 
programs to serve eligible applicants of any age whose communications 
equipment needs are not being met through other available resources and 
the Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Finally, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether it should address in its rules for the 
permanent NDBEDP any other specific state program restrictions that 
currently exclude individuals who may otherwise qualify for NDBEDP 
equipment and related services.

V. Equipment and Related Services

A. Outreach

1. National Outreach

    43. During each year of the pilot program, the Commission has set 
aside $500,000 of the $10 million available annually for national 
outreach efforts to promote the NDBEDP. Significant initial funding for 
outreach was necessary to launch the pilot program, because eligible 
individuals needed to become informed about the availability of the 
program before distribution of equipment could take place. Accordingly, 
in addition to permitting the state programs to use some of their 
funding for outreach to their communities, the Commission authorized 
national outreach efforts to supplement those local efforts. The Bureau 
selected Perkins to conduct this national outreach. This outreach 
effort by Perkins, in partnership with others, has resulted in an 
NDBEDP (``iCanConnect'') Web site that promotes the NDBEDP, provides 
information about and referral to state programs, shares news about the 
program and personal stories of equipment recipients, and includes an 
overview of the types of communications equipment the program can 
provide. The national outreach effort has also resulted in the 
establishment of an 800 number and a call center for program inquiries 
and

[[Page 32894]]

referrals, marketing materials for and monthly conference calls with 
state programs, social media presence, and public service announcements 
(PSAs), as well as advertisements on billboards and in magazines.
    44. Based on both the extensive efforts of the national outreach 
program to alert and educate consumers about the availability of NDBEDP 
equipment through state programs, and the generally high praise for 
these efforts conveyed by others, the Commission proposes to continue 
funding for national outreach efforts as part of the permanent program 
and for the NDBEDP Administrator to oversee these efforts. The 
Commission will consider a variety of approaches to satisfy the 
national outreach requirements for the program including using existing 
Commission staff and resources, engaging another agency with expertise 
in this area through an Interagency agreement, acquiring these services 
through a competitive procurement, evaluating whether to modify a 
contract with an existing contractor to satisfy the program 
requirements--either through direct performance by the main contractor 
or a subcontractor. The Commission may also wish to invite entities, 
via a public notice, to submit applications for the role of national 
outreach coordinator. The Commission will consider using a combination 
of any of these in-house, regulatory, or procurement strategies where 
efficient and lawful to do so. Regardless of the precise approach used 
to obtain national outreach services, the Commission seeks input on the 
performance goals along with performance measures that would be helpful 
in facilitating oversight of national outreach efforts.
    45. At the same time, the Commission believes that, because 
national outreach efforts, combined with state and local outreach 
efforts conducted by certified programs, have made significant progress 
in publicizing the NDBEDP, less national outreach may be needed going 
forward. The Commission therefore proposes to reduce the amount of 
money spent on national outreach to $250,000 for each of the first 
three years of the permanent program, and seeks comment on this 
proposal. Do commenters agree that this reduction in the national 
outreach allocation is appropriate given the limited amount of annual 
funding available to the NDBEDP and, if so, would $250,000 per year be 
an appropriate level of funding? What effect would such a reduction in 
funds have on the types of national outreach efforts that were made 
under the pilot program? For example, will this amount of money be 
sufficient to continue the outreach activities that Perkins identifies 
as ``critical,'' including maintenance of the iCanConnect Web site; the 
800 number and call center; marketing materials; monthly conference 
calls; and support to states to gather and promote success stories? How 
can the Commission ensure that these or other national outreach efforts 
undertaken under the permanent program are cost effective? Should the 
Commission conduct an assessment during the third year to determine 
whether and to what extent to continue such funding support beyond this 
period? Will two years be sufficient to gather the data necessary to 
make this determination during the third year? If the Commission takes 
this approach, it seeks comment on how it should, in the third year, 
evaluate the efficacy of national outreach efforts for this purpose.
    46. The Commission seeks comment on whether national outreach 
efforts should target specific groups, such as American Sign Language 
users, non-English language users, and medical and elder service 
professionals and, if so, why. Would the proposed reduction in funding 
limit national outreach to these targeted groups? Should other 
populations be targeted? What specific methods of communication or 
activities should be used to reach these groups? How can the Commission 
ensure that outreach reaches eligible consumers who do not specifically 
identify as deaf-blind? The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
and to what national outreach should be coordinated with the state 
program efforts, including the costs and benefits of having to take 
such measures.
    47. Finally, performance goals should be defined for the national 
outreach program along with performance measures that are clearly 
linked to each performance goal. Evaluating a program against 
quantifiable metrics is part of the Commission's normal oversight 
functions. As such, the Commission seeks input on the data it should 
collect in order to effectively oversee the outreach efforts. Should 
the Commission collect data on factors such as increases in the number 
of program participants, inquiries through the 800 number/call center, 
referrals through the iCanConnect Web site, consumer applications to 
state programs, the proportion of consumers in specified groups, such 
as by age or language spoken, Web site traffic, growth in social 
channels, and media impressions? If so, at what intervals are reports 
on such data useful?? What are the costs and benefits of collecting and 
evaluating this data? Commenters should explain the connection between 
performance measures proposed and clearly defined program goals.

2. Local Outreach

    48. In addition to setting aside $500,000 per year for national 
outreach during the pilot program, the Commission has required 
certified programs participating in the pilot program to conduct local 
outreach to inform state residents about the NDBEDP, and has provided 
reimbursement for the reasonable costs of this outreach. Given the 
overwhelming endorsement of such efforts in the record, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that it should continue to require certified 
programs participating in the permanent NDBEDP to conduct outreach to 
state residents, and to reimburse these programs for the reasonable 
costs of such outreach. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion.
    49. The Commission also seeks comment on the level of funding for 
state and local outreach that should be considered reasonable for 
purposes of reimbursement under the permanent NDBEDP. Overall, 
certified programs spent a combined average of approximately 10% of 
their total fund allocations on state and local outreach during the 
second year of the pilot program. Given that outreach activities at the 
state level have made significant progress in publicizing the NDBEDP, 
the Commission proposes that such outreach expenditures be capped at 
10% of each state's funding allocation during the first two years of 
the permanent program, after which the Commission proposes that the 
NDBEDP Administrator be required to reassess this level of funding 
authorization. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, as well 
as the specific metrics and criteria that should be used to evaluate 
the success of these outreach efforts, such as the percentage of a 
state program's funding allocation actually used. How can the 
Commission ensure that local outreach efforts undertaken under the 
permanent program have met such metrics, and are cost effective? Are 
there other criteria, including the criteria proposed above for the 
assessment of national outreach activities, that can be applied to 
evaluating the success of state outreach efforts?
    50. Finally, in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission 
explained that state and local outreach may include the development and 
maintenance of a program Web site that contains information about the 
NDBEDP certified program, contact information

[[Page 32895]]

and information about available equipment, as well as ways to apply for 
that equipment and related services provided by the program. The 
Commission believes such Web sites have been very helpful in both 
informing state residents about the existence of the NDBEDP and 
instructing them on how to apply for equipment and related services 
from their local programs. The Commission tentatively concludes that 
its rules should continue to allow reimbursement for the development 
and maintenance of a program Web site. The Commission also required 
that the outreach information and materials that a certified program 
disseminates to potential equipment recipients be provided in 
accessible formats and it tentatively concludes that its rules should 
continue to require accessible outreach materials. The Commission notes 
that certified programs already are required to ensure accessibility 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. See 42 U.S.C. 12131-12134 
(state and local government services), 12181-12189 (public 
accommodations and services operated by private entities). The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals and any other matters 
regarding state and local outreach.
B. Assessments
    51. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission's rules permit 
reimbursement for the reasonable costs of individualized assessments of 
a deaf-blind individual's communications needs by qualified assistive 
technology specialists. Reimbursable assessment costs under the pilot 
program include the reasonable travel costs of state program staff and 
contractors who conduct assessments and provide support services (such 
as qualified interpreters). Individual assessments are needed to ensure 
an appropriate match between the particular type of technology 
distributed and the unique accessibility needs of each consumer, given 
the wide range of abilities and hearing and vision disabilities across 
the deaf-blind population. Further, the Commission continues to believe 
that reimbursement of the reasonable costs of travel by program staff 
and contractors to conduct assessments of individuals located in rural 
or remote areas is necessary to achieve the goal of accessible 
communications under the CVAA. The Commission tentatively concludes 
that the permanent NDBEDP should continue to permit reimbursement for 
these assessment and related travel costs, and seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion. The Commission asks commenters who do not believe 
that such funding support should be continued to explain why it should 
be discontinued. Further, the Commission asks how it can ensure that 
conducting assessments under the permanent program is cost effective or 
how it can improve the cost effectiveness of such assessments. The 
Commission also seeks comment on any other matters related to 
conducting individualized assessments under the NDBEDP.
    52. The Commission presently does not allow reimbursement for the 
costs of deaf-blind consumers traveling to the assessor's location. The 
record shows that, in some instances, it would be preferable for 
consumers to travel to a location away from their homes, such as to the 
state program's office, to have their needs assessed before receiving 
equipment. The Commission proposes to allow but not require certified 
programs to pay for and request reimbursement for the reasonable costs 
of in-state travel for consumers (and their support service providers, 
if needed) when doing so would be more efficient and effective than 
conducting the assessment in the consumer's home. Would allowing such 
coverage benefit consumers, for example, by making a wideessors or 
support services? Should there be a cap on the amount a state program 
can spend on assessment-related cr array of communication devices 
available for such assessments? To what extent would allowing these 
costs provide consumers with access to more skilled assonsumer travel? 
To what extent should the Commission's rules define the permissible 
costs that would be considered reasonable for such travel, and what 
costs should be considered ``reasonable''? Are there other federal 
programs that are instructive with respect to addressing similar travel 
costs? The Commission assumes that most travel could occur from the 
consumer's location to the NDBEDP center and back to the consumer's 
location within a single day, given that travel is within a single 
state, and seeks comment on whether this assumption is correct. For 
example, what is the average distance and duration for consumers to 
travel to the assessment location? How likely is it that a consumer 
would need overnight lodging for the purpose of completing such 
assessment, and if such lodging is necessary, should this be covered by 
NDBEDP funds? To what extent have consumers traveled to another 
location for the purpose of obtaining assessments at their own expense 
during the pilot program, and to what extent are they likely to need 
such travel in the future? Are certified programs already paying for 
consumer travel, without seeking reimbursement for those costs? Are 
state programs able to estimate projected costs for future consumer 
travel if the Commission's proposal to permit these costs is adopted? 
Are any of these expenses able to be reimbursed by other federal 
programs?
    53. Although the Commission believes that reimbursing programs for 
the reasonable costs of consumer travel and support service providers, 
when needed and appropriate, can benefit both consumers and certified 
programs, given the limited NDBEDP funding available to each certified 
program, the Commission is hesitant to allow such compensation without 
the careful review and prior approval of each program pursuant to 
clearly defined guidelines. The Commission therefore proposes that a 
consumer's travel costs be reimbursed only if those costs are first 
pre-approved by the certified program, which should occur only after a 
determination by the program that the reasonable costs of this travel 
would be more efficient and effective than having the assessor travel 
to the consumer. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on specific 
guidelines certified programs should follow or factors they should 
consider to make such determinations. For example, how should certified 
programs weigh possible benefits to a consumer that travels to receive 
an assessment (e.g., to try out a variety of equipment or receive a 
more timely assessment), against a comparison of program personnel 
travel versus consumer travel costs? Finally, the Commission proposes 
that pre-approval for such travel costs by the NDBEDP Administrator not 
be required, but may be requested by state programs, particularly if 
they have questions as to whether the requested travel would comport 
with the established guidelines. The Commission suggests this approach 
because it believes that state programs are in the best position to 
know when consumer travel is either necessary or will achieve the best 
efficiencies for its program. The Commission seeks comment on these and 
any other matters related to the reimbursement for the cost of 
consumers' in-state travel for purposes of obtaining assessments.
    54. The Commission seeks comment on the reasons that a consumer may 
need to travel out-of-state for an assessment, and the number of 
consumers who already do so or are likely to do so, if reimbursement 
were allowed. Because the costs of traveling greater distances are 
likely to be higher than for in-state travel, should certified

[[Page 32896]]

programs be required to seek pre-approval from the NDBEDP Administrator 
for out-of-state travel to ensure that the costs are reasonable? The 
Commission seeks comment on these and any other matters related to the 
need for and appropriateness of having the NDBEDP reimburse state 
programs for the out-of-state travel expenses of consumers relating to 
assessments.
C. Equipment
    55. The NDBEDP provides support for the distribution of specialized 
customer premises equipment needed to make telecommunications services, 
Internet access service, and advanced communications, including 
interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information 
services accessible to people who are deaf-blind. Under the NDBEDP 
pilot program, the Commission reimburses certified programs for the 
reasonable cost of equipment, which may be hardware, software, or 
applications, separate or in combination, mainstream or specialized, as 
long as it meets the needs of the deaf-blind individual to achieve 
access to NDBEDP covered services. Certified programs may not impose 
restrictions on the types of communications technology that a recipient 
may receive, disable features or functions needed to access covered 
services, or accept financial arrangements from a vendor that could 
incentivize the purchase of particular equipment. Certified programs 
may lend or transfer ownership of the distributed equipment to eligible 
recipients, but must prohibit recipients from transferring equipment 
received under the NDBEDP to another person through sale or otherwise. 
Certified programs are permitted to distribute multiple pieces of 
equipment to eligible consumers, as needed. Equipment-related expenses, 
including maintenance, repairs, warranties, returns, maintaining an 
inventory of loaner equipment, as well as refurbishing, upgrading, and 
replacing equipment distributed to consumers are also reimbursable. 
When a recipient relocates to another state, certified programs must 
permit the transfer of the recipient's account and any control of the 
distributed equipment to the new state's certified program. The 
Commission did not establish equipment or funding caps for individual 
recipients during the pilot program. Rather, certified programs may 
distribute more than one device to an individual, within the 
constraints of the state's annual funding allocation and the desire to 
make communications accessible for as many individuals who are deaf-
blind as possible.
    56. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should retain all 
of the equipment distribution provisions of the NDBEDP pilot program 
noted above. The Commission believes that placing restrictions on the 
number of devices that each recipient should be permitted to receive or 
the frequency with which they should be allows to receive them at this 
time would be inconsistent with the goal of the program to ensure 
access to communications services to all eligible low-income 
individuals who are deaf-blind. The better approach, the Commission 
believes, is to continue allowing the flexibility inherent in the 
existing provisions, which permits each certified program to determine 
how many pieces of equipment to provide and with what frequency, to 
meet the varied needs of the individuals in their communities. The 
Commission seeks comment on this approach. The commission also seeks 
comment on how it can ensure that the purchase of equipment under the 
permanent program is cost effective or how it can improve the cost 
effectiveness of such equipment purchases. The Commission further 
invites comment on whether certified programs should be required to 
reassess the communications needs of an equipment recipient when new 
issues, such as developmental, medical, or other changes, result in 
equipment no longer meeting the recipient's needs. The Commission also 
seeks comment on alternatives that might address these concerns.
    57. The record reflects a desire that the centralized database 
contain a functionality that lists and frequently updates types of 
compensable equipment, and that allows certified programs, consumers, 
and industry to post suggestions for new equipment for consideration 
and evaluation, as well as comments, information, instructions or 
suggestions regarding existing equipment. The Commission notes that the 
database proposed in the NPRM, if established, will be populated with 
information about equipment that has been distributed by certified 
programs across the country. If the Commission extends its pilot 
program reporting rules, this information will include the equipment's 
name, serial number, brand, function, and cost, the type of 
communications service with which it is used, and the type of relay 
service it can access. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
certified programs should be permitted to query the proposed database 
to generate a list of equipment that has been provided through the 
NDBEDP. In addition, the iCanConnect Web site, which is maintained as 
part of the NDBEDP national outreach effort, provides general 
information about different kinds of equipment that may be provided 
under the NDBEDP. The iCanConnect Web site also provides consumers with 
examples of specific communication devices commonly used by people who 
are deaf-blind, and therefore are likely to be reimbursable through the 
NDBEDP. Given the speed with which technology evolves, the Commission 
proposes that this list be kept reasonably up to date, though it need 
not be exhaustive. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and 
whether the iCanConnect Web site should provide other functionalities 
for state programs and consumers to aid in their equipment selection, 
such as the ability to compare and contrast different communication 
devices used by people who are deaf-blind. Should consumers be able to 
comment on equipment and, if so, to what extent should the comments be 
moderated, and by whom? How can the information about specific devices 
be kept up to date? Should equipment updates be provided by the Web 
site administrator, certified programs, consumers, industry, or all of 
the above? What are the costs and benefits of such functionalities, and 
would they be achievable with the amount of national outreach funding 
proposed in the NPRM?
    58. The Commission cautions, however, that the appearance of a 
specific piece of equipment in the centralized database or on the 
iCanConnect Web site will not automatically make it eligible for 
reimbursement for all applicants. Rather, because equipment 
distribution determinations must be made based on individual case-by-
case assessments, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify 
specific types of equipment that will be reimbursable for all eligible 
applicants. Indeed, the same piece of equipment may be suitable for one 
individual, yet inappropriate for another. Thus, the Commission 
proposes that equipment reports produced by the centralized database, 
as well as equipment listings on the iCanConnect Web site, include a 
clear and conspicuous notice that the selection of and reimbursement 
for any piece of equipment distributed under the NDBEDP must be based 
on an individual case-by-case assessment and consistent with the NDBEDP 
rules. Consistent with this principle, under the pilot program, when it 
is not obvious that the equipment can be or is commonly used by 
individuals who are

[[Page 32897]]

deaf-blind to access covered services, certified programs have been 
required to support their reimbursement claims with documentation that 
describes how the equipment they distribute makes telecommunications, 
advanced communications, or the Internet accessible to the individual 
who is deaf-blind. The Commission proposes that this requirement be 
carried into the permanent program. The Commission further proposes 
that certified programs be permitted to continue consulting with the 
NDBEDP Administrator about whether the NDBEDP will reimburse the cost 
of a particular piece of equipment for an eligible individual before 
purchasing the equipment. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposals.
    59. Finally, the Commission asks how certified programs can ensure 
that the individuals they serve do not sell or otherwise transfer the 
equipment they receive under the NDBEDP to another person. The 
Commission proposes that equipment recipients be required to execute a 
standard attestation that they will not sell, give, lend, or transfer 
their interest in any equipment they receive under this program. For 
this purpose, and to ensure the truthfulness and accuracy of each 
consumer's application for equipment, the Commission seeks comment on 
the following uniform attestation that it proposes to be included on 
all consumer application forms. Commenters who believe alternate 
attestation language is appropriate should explain why such 
alternatives are appropriate in lieu of this proposal:

    I certify that all information provided on this application, 
including information about my disability and income eligibility to 
receive equipment, is true, complete, and accurate to the best of my 
knowledge. Program officials have my permission to verify the 
information provided. If I am eligible for services, I agree to use 
these services solely for the purposes intended. I further 
understand that I may not sell, give, lend, or transfer interest in 
any equipment provided to me. Falsification of any records or 
failure to comply with these provisions will result in immediate 
termination of service. In addition, I understand that if I 
purposely provide false information I may be subject to legal 
action. I certify that I have read, understand, and accept all 
conditions associated with iCanConnect, the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program.

    60. Should programs be required to verify on a regular basis that 
the equipment continues to reside in the recipient's possession? Would 
a requirement for such verification be burdensome or impractical, given 
the rapid evolution of technology, which frequently requires equipment 
to be upgraded or replaced on a regular basis, such as every few years?
D. Installation and Training
    61. The NDBEDP pilot program permits reimbursement for the 
reasonable costs of installing NDBEDP distributed equipment, 
individualized consumer training on how to use such equipment, and the 
reasonable travel costs of trainers and support services. Having 
equipment set-up and providing training in person are essential to 
ensuring that deaf-blind individuals effectively benefit from the 
NDBEDP and to prevent the underutilization or abandonment of equipment. 
Given its critical importance to the success of the NDBEDP and the 
recognition that the amount of time it takes to train individuals who 
are deaf-blind on new communications equipment depends on a variety of 
factors, including a wide range of capabilities and experiences with 
communications technologies, the Commission refrained from establishing 
caps on such training. For these same reasons, the Commission concluded 
that reimbursable installation and training costs under the pilot 
program would include the reasonable travel costs of trainers and 
individuals providing support services, such as qualified interpreters. 
The Commission proposes to continue to permit reimbursement for the 
reasonable costs of equipment installation, consumer training, and 
travel by trainers and support services, such as qualified 
interpreters. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to continue 
providing compensation for these costs. The Commission also seeks 
comment on how it can ensure that installation and training conducted 
under the permanent program is cost effective or how it can improve the 
cost effectiveness of such installation and training.
    62. The Commission did not permit reimbursement under the pilot 
program for the costs of having consumers travel to receive training. 
The record shows, however, that, in some instances, it is preferable 
for consumers to travel to a location away from their homes to get 
their equipment installed or to receive training. The Commission 
proposes that a consumer's travel costs be reimbursed only if those 
costs are first pre-approved by the consumer's certified program, which 
should occur only after a determination by the program that the 
reasonable costs of this travel would be more efficient and effective 
than in-home installation and training. The Commission seeks comment on 
this approach, as well as a proposal that pre-approval by the NDBEDP 
Administrator not be required but may be requested. The Commission also 
seeks comment on specific guidelines certified programs should follow 
or factors they should consider to make such determinations. For 
example, how should certified programs weigh possible benefits to a 
consumer that travels to receive training, against a comparison of 
program personnel travel versus consumer travel costs? Would allowing 
reimbursement for consumer travel benefit consumers, for example, by 
increasing training opportunities for consumers? To what extent would 
allowing these costs provide consumers with access to more skilled 
trainers or support services? Should there be a cap on the amount a 
state program can spend on training-related consumer travel? To what 
extent should the Commission's rules define the permissible costs that 
would be considered reasonable for such travel, and what costs should 
be considered ``reasonable''? Are there other federal programs that are 
instructive with respect to addressing similar travel costs? Would 
consumers need to travel on more than one day for training and, if so, 
why? What is the average distance and duration for consumers to travel 
to the training location? To the extent that training needs to occur 
over a series of days, or the travel distance is considerable (even 
within the same state), should the costs of lodging and or meals be 
covered, or just the costs of transportation? The Commission requests 
certified programs to share any information they may have on the extent 
to which consumers have traveled to another location at their own 
expense, the extent to which state programs presently reimburse 
consumers for these costs, and to what extent they expect consumers are 
likely to need such travel in the future. Are state programs able to 
estimate projected costs for future consumer travel if the Commission's 
proposal to permit these costs is adopted? Are any of these expenses 
able to be reimbursed by other federal programs? The Commission seeks 
comment on these and any other matters related to the need for and 
appropriateness of reimbursing state programs for consumers' travel 
expenses relating to installation and training.
    63. The Commission seeks comment on the reasons that a consumer may 
need to travel out-of-state for training, and the number of consumers 
who already do so or would do so, if reimbursement were allowed. 
Because the costs of traveling greater distances are likely to be 
higher than for in-state travel, should certified programs be required 
to seek pre-approval from the

[[Page 32898]]

NDBEDP Administrator for out-of-state travel for training to ensure 
that the costs are reasonable? The Commission seeks comment on these 
and any other matters related to the need for and appropriateness of 
having the NDBEDP reimburse state programs for the out-of-state travel 
expenses of consumers relating to training.
E. Training Trainers
    64. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission declined to 
set aside NDBEDP pilot program funds to cover the cost of teaching 
NDBEDP personnel how to train NDBEDP equipment recipients on the use of 
their equipment--i.e., a ``train-the-trainer'' program--because of the 
limited funding available. At the time, the Commission understood that 
there was a shortage of qualified individuals who could carry out this 
training function, particularly with respect to training NDBEDP 
equipment recipients who communicate receptively and/or expressively in 
Braille or American Sign Language. The Commission continues to believe 
that training individuals who are deaf-blind how to use the equipment 
they receive under the NDBEDP promotes access to communication and 
furthers the purposes of the CVAA. The current record confirms the 
critical importance of having sufficient numbers of qualified trainers, 
but notes that the current number of qualified trainers is inadequate. 
To address these concerns, the Commission proposes to authorize up to 
2.5% of the $10 million annual funding allocation ($250,000) for each 
of the first three years of the permanent program to support train-the-
trainer programs, including the reasonable costs of travel for such 
training, and the Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    65. One of the purposes of the CVAA is to help ensure that 
individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications 
services and equipment. To give full effect and meaning to this 
purpose, and in particular to the mandate contained in section 105 of 
the CVAA and section 719 of the Communications Act, directing the 
Commission to address the unmet communications access needs of persons 
who are deaf-blind through a national equipment distribution program, 
the Commission has allowed some of the funding support provided for 
this program to be used for assessments, equipment installation, and 
consumer training. The Commission found their financial support 
necessary because they are essential to the efficient and effective 
distribution of equipment for use by people who are deaf-blind. 
Similarly, because equipment training cannot be achieved in the absence 
of qualified personnel to conduct such training, it would appear that 
the Commission can use its authority to financially support programs 
that distribute specialized customer premises equipment to low-income 
individuals who are deaf-blind by mitigating the current shortage of 
qualified training personnel through the allocation of funding for this 
purpose. The Commission seeks comment on the use of its authority under 
section 719 of the Communications Act for such purpose. Is such 
financial support necessary to give full effect and meaning to the 
CVAA's objectives and to achieve the purpose of section 719?
    66. During the pilot program, the Helen Keller National Center for 
Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults (HKNC) established a train-the-trainer 
program using a grant from a private foundation, which some certified 
programs are using, but others cannot afford. Are additional funds 
available from public or private sources other than the NDBEDP for this 
purpose? Besides HKNC, are any other entities offering train-the-
trainer programs to more than one certified program? Do such entities 
provide individual training, group training, and distance training 
through online resources, or other forms of training? Approximately how 
often do these programs provide training seminars or sessions? What is 
the cost to certified programs to attend training sessions or access 
training materials?
    67. The Commission believes $250,000 to be reasonable and 
sufficient for train-the-trainer programs, and seeks comment on whether 
this amount is appropriate as an initial step. The Commission proposes 
addressing concerns about funding train-the-trainer activities to the 
detriment of funding for the distribution of equipment and provision of 
related services by re-allocating a portion of funding previously used 
for national outreach, discussed above in the Notice, which is less 
needed now than it was at the start of the pilot program. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether increasing the total number of 
qualified trainers nationwide may result in a reduction in overall 
program costs because the small number of currently available trainers 
would no longer have to travel to multiple states to provide training. 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether capping the annual funding 
at 2.5% of NDBEDP funding is advisable to preserve remaining funds for 
other program activities related directly to the distribution of 
consumer equipment. The Commission seeks comment on any other matters 
related to the amount of funding that should be set aside to train 
trainers under the permanent program.
    68. The Commission seeks comment on whether providing funding 
support for the first three years of the permanent program will be 
sufficient to accomplish the desired objectives. If the Commission 
moves forward with this approach, should it conduct an assessment 
during the third year to determine whether and to what extent to 
continue such funding support beyond this period? Will two years be 
sufficient to gather the data necessary to make this determination 
during the third year? If the Commission takes this approach, it seeks 
comment on how it should, in the third year, evaluate the efficacy of 
train-the-trainer programs for this purpose.
    69. State Allocations for Train-the-Trainer Programs. Next, the 
Commission seeks comment on how NDBEDP support can be used to teach 
individuals how to train NDBEDP equipment recipients on the use of 
their equipment. The Commission proposes to allow certified programs to 
use a portion of their NDBEDP funding allocations for train-the-trainer 
activities as they deem appropriate. For example, under this approach, 
each certified program could use approximately 2.5% of its annual 
allocation, or a maximum of $250,000 annually for all certified 
programs, for train-the-trainer activities. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. Should these train-the-trainer expenditures 
be treated as an administrative cost and, if so, should the Commission 
raise the cap on administrative costs from 15% by 2.5% to 17.5% for 
that purpose, rather than require separate accounting for train-the-
trainer activities? Should the Commission permit such reimbursement for 
enrolling personnel in a train-the-trainer activity conducted by HKNC 
or another entity, as well as for train-the-trainer activities that the 
certified program may develop and conduct? If the $250,000 is allocated 
solely to and used by certified programs for training purposes, would 
that influx of money to existing training programs, such as the one 
operated by HKNC, be sufficient to motivate the development of new 
training activities? Should the Commission prohibit reimbursement for 
training that is provided by equipment manufacturers or vendors because 
of the risk of having certified programs favor these manufacturers or 
vendors in their selection of equipment?
    70. Nationally Coordinated Train-the-Trainer Program. 
Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether to establish or 
coordinate a train-the-

[[Page 32899]]

trainer program at the national level, including the costs and benefits 
of having one or more entities provide train-the-trainer activities 
similar to those offered by HKNC. If the Commission adopts this 
approach, it seeks comment generally on how to use such funding. Should 
the amount of training provided to each certified program be equal 
across every state, should it be proportional to the program's NDBEDP 
annual funding allocation, or should it depend on population size, the 
current number of trainers in a state or region, or some other 
criteria? Should the funding provided cover the cost of individual 
participation in the train-the-trainer programs, including the 
reasonable costs of travel? Approximately how many hours of training 
can be delivered to how many personnel with a set-aside of $250,000?
    71. If the Commission establishes or coordinates a train-the-
trainer program at the national level, the Commission will consider a 
variety of approaches to satisfy the requirements for the program 
including using existing Commission staff and resources, engaging 
another agency with expertise in this area through an Interagency 
agreement, acquiring these services through a competitive procurement, 
evaluating whether to modify a contract with an existing contractor to 
satisfy the program requirements--either through direct performance by 
the main contractor or a subcontractor. The Commission may also wish to 
invite entities, via a public notice, to submit applications to 
establish or coordinate a train-the-trainer program. The Commission 
will consider using a combination of any of these in-house, regulatory, 
or procurement strategies where efficient and lawful to do.
    72. If the Commission establishes or coordinates a train-the-
trainer program, what are the essential criteria for the staff and/or 
entity selected to perform the role? HKNC recommends that the following 
criteria are essential: Experience with the target population; 
familiarity with Braille and Braille devices; familiarity with emerging 
communications technologies and end user equipment; staff who are 
skilled in American Sign Language as well as other communication 
methodologies; and a track record of multi-modal training and ability 
to maintain pace with the technology? Are these criteria appropriate 
and sufficient to make such selection? If not, what other criteria 
should the Commission use?
    73. Regardless of whether the Commission supports a nationally 
coordinated train-the-trainer program or allocates funds to certified 
programs for train-the-trainer activities, or some combination of both, 
should the Commission require or permit training in a variety of 
formats, such as individual training, group training, and distance 
training through online resources? Should NDBEDP funding be used for 
that purpose? Should national or state entities providing training be 
required to establish a system for evaluating the outcomes of the 
training? It appears that train-the-trainer activities could ultimately 
lead to the increased employment of individuals with disabilities. Are 
there actions that the Commission could take to promote such efforts? 
Should the Commission encourage either national or state entities to 
train individuals who are deaf-blind, including NDBEDP equipment 
recipients, as trainers? The Commission invites comments on how best to 
establish and support train-the-trainer activities for the permanent 
NDBEDP.

VI. Funding

A. Allocation of Funding
    74. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission set aside 
$500,000 of the $10 million available annually for the NDBEDP for 
national outreach efforts during each year of the pilot program. The 
remaining $9.5 million of the $10 million was divided among each of the 
NDBEDP certified programs by allocating a minimum base amount of 
$50,000 for each jurisdiction plus an amount in proportion to each 
state's population. The Commission generally proposes to maintain the 
current mechanism for allocating NDBEDP funds--setting aside funds 
first for certain national efforts, allocating a minimum of $50,000 for 
each certified program, and allocating the remaining funds to the 
certified programs in proportion to each state's population. National 
efforts may include a centralized database, national outreach, and 
train-the-trainer activities. The Commission invites comment on its 
proposal to maintain the current allocation mechanism.
    75. In addition, the Commission takes this opportunity to remind 
program participants and commenters that TRS funds, are permanent and 
indefinite appropriations and, like other appropriated funds, come with 
certain restrictions. While some of these restrictions are longstanding 
and codified in the United States Code, other restrictions on use of 
appropriated funds (including permanent indefinite appropriations) may 
be included in annual appropriation acts. Parties commenting on the 
proposals in this Notice should ensure that their recommendations are 
consistent with Government-wide statutory and regulatory restrictions 
on the use of appropriated funds.
B. Reallocation of Funding
    76. Under the pilot program, the Commission delegated authority to 
the Bureau to reduce, raise, or reallocate funding allocations to any 
certified program as it deemed necessary and appropriate. During the 
first year of the pilot program, almost 70% of the $10 million 
available to support the NDBEDP was used by certified programs and for 
national outreach. Approximately 90% of the $10 million annual 
allocation was used during the second year of the pilot program. During 
each of the first two years of the pilot program, the NDBEDP 
Administrator reviewed funding data as it became available and worked 
with certified programs and the Bureau to reallocate funding between 
state programs when necessary to maximize the use of available funding.
    77. During the first year of the pilot program, few entities 
reached or exceeded their annual allocation of funds. Only three 
entities requested and received additional funds. In the first half of 
the second year of the pilot program, the NDBEDP Administrator approved 
several requests for reallocations of funds from one certified entity 
to another (``voluntary'' reallocations). During the third quarter of 
the second year, after notice, the NDBEDP Administrator reduced the 
allocations of certified programs that had not used at least half of 
their annual allocation and reallocated those funds to satisfy requests 
from certified programs that reached or exceeded their annual 
allocations (``involuntary'' reallocations). Specifically, the formula 
currently used by the NDBEDP Administrator reduces by 50% the 
allocations of programs that have spent less than 25% during the first 
half of the year, and reduces by 25% the allocations of programs that 
have spent more than 25% but less than 50% during the first half of the 
year. Certified programs have an opportunity to request that the NDBEDP 
Administrator consider increasing or reducing the proposed change in 
allocation. The Commission seeks comment on this method and formula, or 
any alternative methods or formulas for making involuntary 
reallocations in the permanent NDBEDP. Commenters that suggest 
alternatives should explain how these would lead to effective results 
for the intended community and how such

[[Page 32900]]

standards would add to the efficiency of the program. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that these reallocations have helped requesting 
programs meet their needs and have not prevented programs with 
decreased funding from satisfying the needs of their constituents.
    78. Approximately one month after the first half of the Fund year 
ends, the Bureau has the requisite data from all certified programs to 
determine whether and to what extent involuntary funding reallocations 
may be appropriate. This is because, as discussed further the Notice, 
state programs have the option of filing their reimbursement claims on 
a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis. The Bureau needs full 
information on the amounts requested by every program through the first 
half of the Fund year to determine the amount of remaining funds 
available for involuntary reallocations. Accordingly, the Commission 
proposes to allow voluntary reallocations between certified programs at 
any time during the Fund year with the approval of the NDBEDP 
Administrator, in consultation with the TRS Fund Administrator, as 
needed. The Commission also proposes to continue making involuntary 
reallocations as necessary when individual program performance 
indicates that NDBEDP funds could be more fully utilized by other 
certified programs. Further, the Commission proposes to continue its 
current practice of notifying and coordinating with the potentially 
impacted certified programs prior to making involuntary reallocations 
of funding. The Commission seeks comment on these reallocation 
proposals.
C. Reimbursement Mechanism
    79. When it established the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission 
considered two funding mechanisms: (1) Distributing funds to certified 
programs at the start of each Fund year and letting the programs use 
the funds as they saw fit; or (2) reimbursing programs up to each 
state's allocation for the equipment they distribute. The Commission 
concluded that the reimbursement approach was more appropriate both 
because it would provide incentives for certified programs to actively 
locate eligible participants and would achieve greater accountability 
and protection against fraud, waste, and abuse. Under the NDBEDP pilot 
program, the Commission reimburses programs for the costs incurred for 
authorized equipment and related services, up to each certified 
program's initial or adjusted allocation. Each reimbursement claim must 
be accompanied by a declaration made under penalty of perjury attesting 
to the truth and accuracy of the submission. Certified programs may 
elect to seek reimbursement monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually.
    80. The Commission proposes to continue using the present 
reimbursement mechanism to fund equipment distribution and related 
services under the permanent NDBEDP because a system that advances 
funds presents challenges relating to returning or reallocating unspent 
funds and would result in more complicated recordkeeping, and a 
reimbursement mechanism is more likely to keep certified programs 
accountable and deter fraud, waste, and abuse. The Commission further 
proposes that the current requirement for certified programs to support 
their reimbursement claims with documentation, a reasonably detailed 
explanation of incurred costs, and a declaration be carried into the 
permanent program. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and 
other guidelines that may be needed with respect to the submission and 
processing of reimbursement claims to ensure that certified programs 
operate in a cost-efficient manner and maintain the financial integrity 
of the program. The record reflects that there was some frustration 
with delays in the processing of reimbursement claims at the start of 
the pilot program, but the timeliness of payments has since improved. 
The Commission does not propose a specific period by which 
reimbursement claims must be paid, but notes that, when a claim is 
submitted with sufficient documentation and does not require further 
clarification, it expects the Bureau and the TRS Fund Administrator to 
be able to process that claim within 30 days, and claims requiring 
additional documentation or clarification generally will be processed 
within 60 days. As discussed in the Notice, the Commission proposes to 
permit each certified program to populate a centralized database with 
claim-related data, from which it may generate its reimbursement 
claims. Timely reimbursement is more likely to occur for claims 
submitted in such a uniform manner.
    81. To continue meeting the individualized needs of these programs, 
the Commission proposes to continue allowing certified entities to 
elect, upon certification and at the beginning of each Fund year, 
whether to submit claims on a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis 
and to require submission within 30 days after each elected period. The 
TRS Fund Administrator recommends that certified programs be required 
to submit monthly claims and to request a waiver to submit claims less 
frequently. Only 10 programs have elected to submit claims monthly, 
with the other 43 programs opting for quarterly or semi-annual 
schedules. The Commission seeks comment on the reasons that these 43 
programs have not elected to submit claims on a monthly basis and 
whether all programs should be required to begin filing monthly, for 
example, for the sake of program consistency. Alternatively, is each 
certified program best suited to determine the frequency with which it 
needs to be reimbursed? The Commission seeks comment on the advantages 
and disadvantages of maintaining the current practice or whether the 
Commission should revise its rules to require all programs to adhere to 
a single schedule for filing reimbursement claims. In particular the 
Commission asks parties to comment on the extent to which a requirement 
to follow a single filing schedule would be more efficient or impose 
difficulties on programs with limited resources.
D. Administrative Costs
    82. Under the Commission's rules for the NDBEDP pilot program, 
certified programs may be compensated for administrative costs up to 
15% of their total reimbursable costs (i.e., not their total 
allocation) for equipment and related services. The Commission has 
defined administrative costs to include reporting requirements, 
accounting, regular audits, oversight, and general administration. To 
track and ensure that appropriate administrative costs are reimbursed, 
the TRS Fund Administrator has procedures to ``bank'' reimbursement 
claims for administrative costs that exceed 15% of reimbursable costs 
and to pay those claims later if the amount of reimbursable costs 
increases with later submissions.
    83. Given the general accomplishments of the 53 certified programs 
in distributing communications equipment to their deaf-blind residents, 
the Commission is no longer concerned that basing the cap of 
administrative costs on the full funding allocation for each certified 
program will eliminate the necessary incentives to carry out the 
NDBEDP's objectives. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to reimburse 
administrative costs as they are incurred and claimed, based on the 
annual allocation rather than the amount of reimbursable costs, thereby 
eliminating the need for the TRS Fund Administrator to ``bank'' 
unearned

[[Page 32901]]

administrative costs. The Commission seeks comment on that proposal.
    84. The Commission further acknowledges that some programs have 
reported operating at a loss as a result of the 15% cap on 
administrative expenses, and recognizes that this could potentially act 
as a disincentive to participate in the NDBEDP. During the second year 
of the pilot program, certified programs that exceeded the 15% cap had 
about 3% more administrative costs than were allowed by the cap. To 
respond to these concerns, rather than raise the cap by the 3% needed 
to cover those overages, the Commission believes that its proposal to 
create a centralized database for certified programs to generate 
reports and reimbursement claims may alleviate the administrative 
burdens for certified programs operating in the permanent NDBEDP. If 
adopted, certified programs that have been incurring costs associated 
with the use of a database, such as the Perkins database discussed in 
the NPRM, would no longer need to do so, nor have those costs assessed 
against their 15% cap on administrative costs. Other programs that have 
expended funds to develop databases on their own to generate reports 
and reimbursement claims may also similarly experience a reduction in 
the costs associated with these tasks. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal and, in particular, asks whether it will help to meet the 
financial needs of certified programs, particularly programs that have 
found the 15% cap on administrative costs to be a barrier to their 
effective participation in the NDBEDP. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether its proposal regarding administrative costs, 
including the types of costs included in this category of expenses 
(such as costs associated with reporting requirements, accounting, 
regular audits, oversight, and general administration) is consistent 
with other similar programs. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether there are any best practices that should be employed in this 
area.

VII. Oversight and Reporting

A. Reporting
    85. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require all certified programs 
to report certain information to the Commission in an electronic format 
every six months. The report must include, among other things, 
information about NDBEDP equipment recipients; distributed equipment; 
the cost, time and other resources allocated to outreach activities, 
assessment, equipment installation and training, and for equipment 
maintenance, repair, refurbishment, and upgrades; equipment requests 
that have been rejected; complaints; and waiting lists. Each report 
must be accompanied by a declaration made under penalty of perjury 
attesting to the truth and accuracy of the submission. In the NDBEDP 
Pilot Program Order, the Commission concluded that such reporting is 
necessary for the effective administration of the NDBEDP pilot program, 
to assess the effectiveness of the program, to ensure the integrity of 
the TRS Fund, to ensure compliance with the NDBEDP pilot program rules, 
and to inform the Commission's rulemaking for the permanent NDBEDP.
    86. The Commission proposes to retain the six-month reporting 
requirement. During the pilot program, it has been useful for the 
Commission to gather the required information to effectively evaluate 
NDBEDP operations. The Commission believes that continuing to receive 
this data will be useful to the permanent program as well, because this 
will allow the Commission to ensure that NDBEDP certified programs 
continue to operate efficiently and that they effectively meet consumer 
needs. As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission proposes to require 
certified programs to submit report-related data to and generate 
reports from a centralized database, which will enable the Commission 
to examine the data from all certified programs in the aggregate. With 
all program data bundled together in a uniform report generated by the 
database, the Commission believes that it will be better able to assess 
and manage the NDBEDP. The Commission invites comment on its proposal 
to retain the reporting requirement.
    87. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should modify the 
information these reports should include. In particular, are there 
differences in the pilot and permanent programs that should cause the 
Commission to change the nature of the data required by these reporting 
obligations? The Commission also seeks comment on ways that the 
provision of data required for reimbursement claims and reporting 
requirements can be streamlined through the design of a centralized 
database or by other means. For example, should state programs be 
permitted to submit reports at the same frequency as reimbursement 
claims to streamline these requirements further? What are the 
advantages or disadvantages of allowing certified programs to submit 
reimbursement claims and reports on a monthly, quarterly, or biannual 
basis? Should the reporting period be the same for all certified 
programs to ensure consistency of data? If so, what should that period 
be? Alternatively, now that the Commission is transitioning the NDBEDP 
to a permanent program, would it serve the program just as well if 
submission of the reports were required annually instead of every six 
months?
    88. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission requires 
certified programs to submit a certification with each report executed 
by ``the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or other 
senior executive of the certified program, such as a director or 
manager, with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of 
the information provided in the report,'' as follows:

    I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an 
officer of the above-named reporting entity and that I have examined 
the foregoing reports and that all requested information has been 
provided and all statements of fact are true and an accurate 
statement of the affairs of the above-named certified program.


    89. Consistent with the Commission's Universal Service low-income 
program rules, and to clarify what ``affairs'' means in this context, 
the Commission propose to amend the certification as follows:

    I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an 
officer of the above-named reporting entity, and that the entity has 
policies and procedures in place to ensure that recipients satisfy 
the NDBEDP eligibility requirements, that the entity is in 
compliance with the Commission's NDBEDP rules, that I have examined 
the foregoing reports and that all requested information has been 
provided, and all statements of fact are true and an accurate 
statement of the business activities conducted pursuant to the 
NDBEDP by the above-named certified program.


    90. Similarly, the Commission proposes to amend the certification 
required with reimbursement claims to clarify that the ``affairs'' of 
the certified program means the ``business activities conducted 
pursuant to the NDBEDP'' by the certified program. The Commission seeks 
feedback on this and any other matters pertaining to the reporting 
obligations not discussed above, including the costs and benefits of 
retaining these requirements.
B. Audits
    91. During the pilot program, certified programs have been required 
to engage an independent auditor to perform annual audits designed to 
detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

[[Page 32902]]

Certified programs must also make their NDBEDP-related records 
available for review or audit by appropriate officials of the 
Commission. The Commission proposes to continue to require certified 
programs to engage an independent auditor to perform annual audits. As 
recommended by the TRS Fund Administrator, the Commission also proposes 
that each certified program submit a copy of its annual audit to the 
TRS Fund Administrator and the NDBEDP Administrator. The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals.
    92. Further, the Commission proposes to clarify that NDBEDP 
certified programs are not required to conduct their annual audits 
using a more rigorous audit standard, such as a forensic standard, 
specifically designed to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. 
The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to affirm the following 
guidance provided by the Bureau in November 2012 to certified programs 
regarding their annual audit requirement:


    For purposes of complying with the NDBEDP audit rule, an 
independent auditor must conduct a program audit that includes a 
traditional financial statement audit, as well as an audit of 
compliance with the NDBEDP rules that have a direct and material 
impact on NDBEDP expenditures and a review of internal controls 
established to ensure compliance with the NDBEDP rules.

    Compliance areas to be audited include, but are not limited to, 
allowable costs, participant eligibility, and reporting. The audit 
report must describe any exceptions found, such as unallowable 
costs, lack of participant eligibility documentation, and missing 
reports. The report also must include the certified program's view 
as to whether each compliance exception is material and whether any 
internal control deficiencies are material.

    If the auditor finds evidence of fraud, waste, or abuse, the 
auditor must take appropriate steps to discuss it with the certified 
program management and the FCC and report the auditor's observations 
as required under professional auditing standards. This program 
audit standard is comparable to that required for Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 audits. The Commission 
believes that such audits of NDBEDP certified programs, conducted 
annually by an independent auditor, will detect and prevent fraud, 
waste, and abuse, which will satisfy the NDBEDP audit rule.

    93. Commenters note that the Commission should provide guidance 
with respect to whether certified programs must comply with OMB 
Circular A-133 audit requirements. Because the program audit criteria 
described above are similar to that of an OMB Circular A-133 audit, the 
Commission proposes to require that audits under the permanent NDBEDP 
be performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. The Commission 
invites comment on this proposal. Commenters that disagree with this 
proposal are asked to explain why.
    94. In addition, the Commission proposes to continue to require 
each program to submit to an audit at any time deemed necessary by the 
Commission or its delegated authorities. This proposal is consistent 
with the Commission's TRS rules. This approach could also be 
implemented by performing audits either as needed or on a regular basis 
at intervals longer that one year. A full audit of an NDBEDP certified 
entity, as directed by the Commission or a delegated authority may be 
appropriate, for example, to obtain financial information needed for 
the FCC's consolidated annual financial audit, which also includes the 
financial results for the TRS Fund. As another example, a full audit 
may also be appropriate when the TRS Fund Administrator and the NDBEDP 
Administrator agree that reimbursement claims submitted by a certified 
program contain a pattern of errors or indicia reflecting a lack of 
accountability, fraud, waste, or abuse. The Commission further proposes 
that any program that fails to fully cooperate in such audits, for 
example, by failing to provide documentation necessary for verification 
upon reasonable request, be subject to an automatic suspension of 
NDBEDP payments until sufficient documentation is provided. The 
Commission believes that this automatic suspension policy, which is 
currently applied to the TRS program, would promote transparency and 
accountability in the compensation process. The Commission seeks 
comment on the costs and benefits of adopting this approach.
    95. To further prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and 
ensure compliance with the NDBEDP rules, the Commission proposes to 
retain the provision in the pilot program rules requiring certified 
programs to submit documentation demonstrating ongoing compliance with 
the Commission's rules. Because the Commission may choose to initiate 
an investigation at its discretion and on its own motion, the 
Commission proposes to eliminate the example that appears in the pilot 
program rules from the permanent NDBEDP rules that suggests that 
``evidence that a state program may not be in compliance with those 
rules'' is a prerequisite to such an investigation. 47 CFR 
64.610(j)(3). The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    96. Finally, to further prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, 
the Commission proposes to retain the whistleblower protections in the 
NDBEDP rules. Those protections require certified programs to permit 
individuals to disclose to appropriate officials, without reprisal, 
known or suspected violations of the Commission's rules or any other 
activity the individual believes to be unlawful, wasteful, fraudulent, 
or abusive, or that could result in the improper distribution of 
equipment, provision of services, or billing to the TRS Fund. Certified 
programs must include these whistleblower protections with the 
information they provide about the program in any employee handbooks or 
manuals, on their Web sites, and in other appropriate publications. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
C. Record Retention
    97. As part of the pilot program, the Commission adopted a rule 
requiring all certified programs to retain all records associated with 
the distribution of equipment and provision of related services under 
the pilot program for two years following the termination of the pilot 
program, without specifying the format in which they must be retained, 
but with the goal of promoting greater transparency and accountability. 
Consistent with the Commission's TRS rules, the Commission proposes to 
require certified programs to retain all records associated with the 
distribution of equipment and provision of related services under the 
permanent program for a minimum of five years. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal and whether such records should be retained 
for a longer or shorter period of time. Certified programs need such 
records to support their reimbursement claims, to generate reports 
required to be filed with the Commission, and to comply with audit 
requirements. The Commission has also found that such records are 
needed for responding to inquiries and complaints. As such, and 
consistent with the Commission's Universal Service low-income program 
rules and the NDBEDP pilot program rules, the Commission also proposes 
that certified programs document compliance with all Commission 
requirements governing the NDBEDP and provide this documentation to the 
Commission upon request. Record retention is also necessary in the 
event that questions arise about a program's compliance with NDBEDP 
rules or the propriety of requests for payment. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal.

[[Page 32903]]

    98. The Commission believes that records also are needed to 
transfer information to another certified program when an eligible 
consumer moves to another state or to transfer information to a newly-
certified program when a certified entity either relinquishes its 
certification or decides not to seek re-certification. Should the 
Commission's rules require NDBEDP applications to include a release 
that would permit disclosure of information about the applicant by the 
certified program, as needed, to minimize any interruption in service 
if such individual moves to another state or a new entity takes over 
certification for that individual's state? Alternatively, if the 
Commission adopts a centralized database for processing reimbursement 
claims or reporting purposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
it will continue to be necessary for certified programs to retain a 
copy of these records. If so, which records should be retained by 
certified programs and for what period of time? Should the Commission 
specify that records must be retained in paper or electronic format, or 
should it allow each certified program to decide the format in which to 
retain its records? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other 
matters related to the retention of records under the permanent 
program.

VIII. Logistics and Responsibilities

    99. The Bureau designated an NDBEDP Administrator, who has been 
responsible for, among other things, reviewing applications from 
entities for certification to receive NDBEDP funding, allocating NDBEDP 
funding, reviewing reimbursement claims, maintaining the NDBEDP Web 
site, resolving stakeholder issues, and serving as the Commission point 
of contact for the NDBEDP. The NDBEDP Administrator has worked with the 
current TRS Fund Administrator, who has been responsible for, among 
other things, reviewing cost submissions and releasing funds under the 
NDBEDP for distributed equipment and related services, including 
outreach efforts.
    100. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Bureau should 
continue to implement and administer the permanent NDBEDP, and to 
retain authority over NDBEDP policy matters and the functions of the 
NDBEDP Administrator. For example, the Bureau may task the NDBEDP 
Administrator with oversight of the development and maintenance of a 
centralized database, as well as the support for train-the-trainer 
programs that may be authorized under the Commission's final rules in 
this proceeding. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
administration of the NDBEDP should be consolidated with the 
administration of the other TRS programs in order to achieve greater 
efficiencies and cost savings. The Commission recognizes that after 
adoption of rules establishing the pilot program in 2011, in 2013, the 
Commission delegated financial oversight of the TRS Fund to the Office 
of Managing Director (OMD). Thus, the Commission also seeks comment on 
ensuring that administration of the permanent NDBEDP be conducted in a 
manner that ensures the Bureau's continued oversight over policy 
matters relating to the program while at the same time ensuring that 
the Commission satisfies its financial management responsibilities for 
the TRS program as a whole, complies with all Government-wide financial 
requirements, and achieves efficiencies and savings in the 
administrative costs of the NDBEDP.
    101. For the permanent NDBEDP, like other TRS programs, financial 
oversight must be consistent with TRS orders, rules, and policies, and 
that OMD should consult with the Bureau on issues that potentially 
could impact the availability, provision, and continuity of services to 
consumers. Consistent with such direction, the Commission proposes that 
financial oversight of the NDBEDP be required to be consistent with 
NDBEDP orders, rules, and policies, and that OMD and the Bureau closely 
coordinate on any issues that could potentially impact the distribution 
of equipment or provision of related services to consumers under the 
NDBEDP. Finally, consistent with the current practice under the NDBEDP 
pilot program, the Commission proposes that the Bureau remain 
responsible for advising the TRS Fund Administrator on funding 
allocations and reallocations; payments; and any payment withholdings 
under the permanent NDBEDP, to the extent that such actions can be made 
consistently with Government-wide financial requirements and existing 
contractual obligations and requirements. Currently, the TRS Fund 
Administrator conducts a quantitative review to determine if the 
requested dollar amount is accurate and recommends payment, and the 
NDBEDP Administrator conducts a qualitative review to ensure that the 
claimed costs are consistent with the NDBEDP rules and approves 
payment. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it should establish a process 
for certified programs to appeal payment withholdings, denials, or 
suspensions by the NDBEDP Administrator. If so, what should that 
process be? For example, should a certified program be permitted to 
appeal such decisions to the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau? The Commission presently maintains a process for the 
handling of appeals in response to the suspension or withholding of TRS 
payments, and asks commenters whether a similar or alternative appeals 
process should be applied to compensation withheld, suspended, or 
denied under the NDBEDP.

IX. Other Considerations

A. Complaints
    102. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the NDBEDP Administrator is 
responsible for responding to consumer complaints filed directly with 
the Commission. Complaints might be filed for various reasons, such as 
complaints about unskilled trainers or interpreters, or to appeal a 
certified program's eligibility determination or denial of equipment. 
The Commission proposes to adopt rules for the permanent NDBEDP to 
facilitate the receipt and processing of such consumer complaints and 
appeals.
    103. For this purpose, the Commission proposes to adopt informal 
and formal complaint procedures, modeled after the Commission's 
processes for the handling of complaints against telecommunications and 
TRS providers, as follows. First, the Commission proposes that an 
informal complaint filed with the Commission must include the name and 
contact information of the complainant; the name of the NDBEDP 
certified program; a statement describing how the NDBEDP certified 
program violated the Commission's rules; what the complainant wants the 
NDBEDP certified program to do to resolve the complaint; and the 
complainant's preferred format or method of response, such as by 
letter, fax, telephone, TTY, or email. The Commission will forward 
complete complaints to the NDBEDP certified program for a response. 
When it appears that an informal complaint has been resolved, the 
Commission may consider the matter closed. In all other cases, the 
Commission will inform the complainant and the NDBEDP certified program 
about its review and disposition of the complaint. If a complainant is 
not satisfied with the NDBEDP certified program's response and the 
Commission's disposition of the informal complaint, the complainant may 
file a formal complaint with the Commission in accordance with the

[[Page 32904]]

Commission's rules for filing formal complaints. See 47 CFR 1.720-
1.736. The Commission may also conduct inquiries and hold proceedings 
that it deems necessary to enforce the NDBEDP requirements. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposed informal and formal 
complaint procedures.
B. Research and Development
    104. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission declined to 
allocate funds for research and development (R&D) efforts. Although the 
Commission recognized the need to stimulate innovation to fill existing 
equipment and technology gaps to meet the communications technology 
access needs of individuals who are deaf-blind, it concluded that R&D 
funding was not appropriate because of insufficient information about 
those gaps and the kinds of research and funding needed to fill them. 
Likewise, because the amount of NDBEDP funding available each year is 
very limited, and because the potential gaps between existing 
technology and technology needed to meet the communications needs of 
individuals who are deaf-blind are not apparent on the record at this 
time, the Commission tentatively concludes that funding is more 
appropriately allocated to the distribution of equipment to consumers 
and related services than to R&D and seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion.
C. Advisory Group
    105. The Commission recently announced the formation of a 
Disability Advisory Committee, which will provide advice and 
recommendations to the Commission on a wide array of disability 
matters, including the NDBEDP. In addition, the Commission's rulemaking 
proceedings are open to the public for comment, and feedback from 
administrators of certified programs is always welcome. For example, 
during the NDBEDP pilot program, the sharing of expertise and ideas for 
the NDBEDP has been accomplished through informal monthly conference 
calls among certified programs that the Commission proposes to continue 
under the permanent program. For these reasons, the Commission does not 
see the need to establish a separate workgroup of state NDBEDP programs 
to advise the Commission at this time. The Commission seeks comment on 
this approach.

Initial Regulatory Flexibiity Certification

    106. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA 
generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term 
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A ``small 
business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.
    107. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on its proposal to 
further implement section 105 of the CVAA that requires the Commission 
to take various measures to ensure that people with disabilities have 
access to emerging communications technologies in the 21st Century. 
Section 105 of the CVAA adds section 719 to the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and is codified at 47 U.S.C. 620. Pursuant to section 
105, in 2011, the Commission established the NDBEDP as a pilot program 
to provide up to $10 million annually from the TRS Fund for the 
distribution of communications devices to low-income individuals who 
are deaf-blind. 47 CFR 64.610 (NDBEDP pilot program rules). A person 
who is ``deaf-blind'' has combined vision and hearing loss, as defined 
in the Helen Keller National Center Act. 47 U.S.C. 620(b); 29 U.S.C. 
1905(2). The Commission authorized up to 53 certified programs to 
participate in the pilot program--one entity to distribute equipment in 
each state, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands--and selected Perkins School for the Blind as the 
national outreach coordinator to support the outreach and distribution 
efforts of these state programs. Through the pilot program, thousands 
of low-income individuals who are deaf-blind have received equipment 
used for distance communications or the Internet and training on how to 
operate this equipment.
    108. On August 1, 2014, the Commission released a Public Notice 
inviting comment on which rules governing the NDBEDP pilot program 
should be retained and which should be modified to make the permanent 
NDBEDP more effective and more efficient. On May 21, 2015, the 
Commission extended the pilot program until June 30, 2016. 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 
Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210, Order, FCC 15-57 (rel. May 27, 
2015). The Commission commits to continue the pilot NDBEDP as long as 
necessary to ensure a seamless transition between the pilot and 
permanent programs to ensure the uninterrupted distribution of 
equipment to this target population. When the Commission adopts final 
rules for the permanent program it will consider the extent to which 
the pilot program needs to be extended further.
    109. Currently, programs are certified to distribute equipment in 
all the states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. The NPRM proposes to expand NDBEDP programs and funding 
to the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 
Mariana Islands because residents of these territories are also 
eligible for services supported by the TRS Fund.
    110. The NPRM proposes that current programs and other entities 
that want to apply for certification seek certification for a five-year 
period and every five years after that. The NPRM proposes that, if a 
current program seeks to renew its certification or another entity 
wants to apply for certification, it must, one year prior to the 
expiration of a certification, submit an application explaining why it 
is still eligible to participate in the NDBEDP.
    111. The NPRM proposes that the Commission create, by itself or by 
engaging a third party, a centralized database that would assist the 
programs in performing two functions. First, all programs would be able 
to submit information into the database and use the database to 
generate the reports that must be submitted to the Commission every six 
months. Second, all programs would be able to submit data regarding 
their expenses into the database and generate reimbursement claims that 
must be submitted to the TRS Fund Administrator. Submission of data 
into a central database in a uniform manner would diminish 
administrative costs for the programs. Collecting data in a uniform 
manner from the programs would enable the Commission to analyze 
aggregate data. The NPRM invites comment on the development and 
functions of the database, and estimates that the database will cost 
between $285,000 and $380,000 annually.
    112. The NPRM proposes that each certified program be required to 
make public on its Web site, if one is

[[Page 32905]]

maintained by the certified program, or as part of its other local 
outreach efforts a brief narrative description of any criteria, 
priorities, or strategies it uses to ensure the fair distribution of 
equipment to low-income residents who are deaf-blind. The NPRM invites 
comment on whether any burdens placed on the program by such a 
requirement would be outweighed by the benefits.
    113. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission concluded 
that without training recipients on how to use the communications 
equipment they receive, such as Braille readers, recipients will not be 
able to use the equipment, and the equipment will be underutilized or 
abandoned. The NDBEDP pilot program permits reimbursement for the 
reasonable costs of installing NDBEDP-distributed equipment and 
individualized consumer training on how to use such equipment. To help 
address a shortage of qualified trainers, the NPRM proposes to set 
aside 2.5% of the $10 million annual funding allocation ($250,000) for 
each of the first three years of the permanent program to support 
train-the-trainer activities, including the reasonable costs of travel 
for such training, and seeks comment on this proposal. The Notice 
invites comment on whether to support train-the-trainer programs 
provided by one or more entities, or to reimburse state programs for 
train-the-trainer activities they select.
    114. Under the Commission's rules for the NDBEDP pilot program, 
certified programs are compensated for 100% of their expenses, up to 
each program's annual allocation set by the NDBEDP Administrator. 
Within this annual allocation amount, the Commission did not establish 
any caps for costs associated with outreach, assessments, equipment, 
installation, or training, but did establish a cap for administrative 
costs. The NPRM proposes to limit local outreach conducted by certified 
programs to 10% of their annual allocations. The Commission, in a 
previous NDBEDP order, defined administrative costs to include 
reporting requirements, accounting, regular audits, oversight, and 
general administration. Programs may be compensated for administrative 
costs up to 15% of their total reimbursable costs (i.e., not their 
total allocation) for equipment and related services actually provided. 
The 15% cap does not apply to, and there is no cap for, costs 
associated with outreach, assessments, equipment, installation, or 
training. The NPRM proposes to reimburse certified programs for 
administrative costs up to 15% of their annual allocation, regardless 
of the amount of equipment and related services they actually provide. 
The NPRM recognizes that during the first two years of the NDBEDP 
pilot, some programs' administrative costs exceeded the allowable 15% 
reimbursable amount. To respond to these concerns, the NPRM proposes 
the creation of a centralized database to be used by certified programs 
for generating reports and reimbursement claims, which may alleviate 
the administrative burdens for certified programs operating in the 
permanent NDBEDP by making it easier to operate without a loss within 
the 15% administrative cap. If adopted, certified programs would no 
longer have these costs and therefore would have more money under their 
15% cap on administrative costs.
    115. During each year of the pilot program, the Commission has set 
aside $500,000 of the $10 million available annually for Perkins School 
for the Blind, as the outreach coordinator selected by the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau), to perform national 
outreach to promote the NDBEDP. As the Commission explained in the 
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, significant initial funding for outreach 
was necessary to inform eligible individuals about the availability of 
the program so that distribution of equipment could take place. Based 
on the successful efforts of the national outreach program, the NPRM 
proposes to continue funding for national outreach efforts at a reduced 
level. The NPRM therefore proposes to reduce the amount of money spent 
on national outreach to $250,000 for each of the first three years of 
the permanent program, and seeks comment on this proposal.
    116. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require all certified programs 
to report their status every six months. The NPRM finds that continuing 
to receive this data will be useful to the permanent program as well 
because this will allow the Commission to ensure that NDBEDP certified 
programs continue to operate efficiently and that they effectively meet 
consumer needs. The NPRM finds that any current reporting burden on the 
certified programs will be diminished by the creation of a centralized 
database.
    117. During the pilot program, certified programs have been 
required to engage an independent auditor to perform annual audits 
designed to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The NPRM 
proposes to continue to require certified programs to engage an 
independent auditor to perform annual audits. It also proposes that 
each certified program submit a copy of its annual audit to the TRS 
Fund Administrator and the NDBEDP Administrator and to continue to 
require each program to submit to an audit at any time deemed necessary 
by the Commission or its delegated authorities. The NPRM invites 
comments on this proposal and any alternative proposals.
    118. Under the current NDBEDP, 53 certified programs provide 
communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. 
Under the NPRM, this number may be expanded to 56 certified programs. 
One entity performs national outreach to promote the NDBEDP and serve 
as a resource to the certified programs. The NPRM proposes to create a 
centralized database and the Commission may engage a third-party for 
that purpose. The NPRM also proposes that the Commission may select an 
entity to train the certified programs' trainers. The Commission will 
pay all of these entities for their costs to perform these duties from 
the TRS Fund so that all their NDBEDP costs are reimbursed up to the 
annual funding allocations established for these purposes.
    119. The Commission finds that the rules proposed in the NPRM will 
not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the 
Commission will reimburse them for all of their NDBEDP expenses from 
the TRS Fund, up to their annual funding allocations. The proposals in 
the NPRM are intended to reduce the administrative burden on certified 
programs. The changes the Commission proposes are of an administrative 
nature, and will not have a significant economic impact on small 
entities. If there is an economic impact on small entities as a result 
of these proposals, however, the Commission expects the impact to be a 
positive one.
    120. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that 
the proposals in the NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    121. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including a copy 
of this initial certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 
719 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 154(j), and 620, that document FCC 15-58 IS ADOPTED.
    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference

[[Page 32906]]

Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of document FCC 15-58, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Individuals with disabilities; Telecommunications.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission proposes to amend Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 
104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 
225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise Sec.  64.610 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.610  National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program.

    (a) The National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) 
is established to distribute specialized customer premises equipment 
(CPE) used for telecommunications service, Internet access service, and 
advanced communications, including interexchange services and advanced 
telecommunications and information services, to low-income individuals 
who are deaf-blind.
    (b) Certification to receive funding. For each state, including the 
District of Columbia and U.S. territories, the Commission will certify 
a single program as the sole authorized entity to participate in the 
NDBEDP and receive reimbursement for its program's activities from the 
Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund). Such 
entity will have full oversight and responsibility for distributing 
equipment and providing related services, such as outreach, 
assessments, installation, and training, in that state, either directly 
or through collaboration, partnership, or contract with other 
individuals or entities in-state or out-of-state, including other 
NDBEDP certified programs.
    (1) Public programs, including, but not limited to, equipment 
distribution programs, vocational rehabilitation programs, assistive 
technology programs, or schools for the deaf, blind or deaf-blind; or 
private entities, including but not limited to, organizational 
affiliates, independent living centers, or private educational 
facilities, may apply to the Commission for certification as the sole 
authorized entity for the state to participate in the NDBEDP and 
receive reimbursement for its activities from the TRS Fund.
    (2) The Commission shall review applications and determine whether 
to grant certification based on the ability of a program to meet the 
following qualifications, either directly or in coordination with other 
programs or entities, as evidenced in the application and any 
supplemental materials, including letters of recommendation:
    (i) Expertise in the field of deaf-blindness, including familiarity 
with the culture and etiquette of people who are deaf-blind, to ensure 
that equipment distribution and the provision of related services 
occurs in a manner that is relevant and useful to consumers who are 
deaf-blind;
    (ii) The ability to communicate effectively with people who are 
deaf-blind (for training and other purposes), by among other things, 
using sign language, providing materials in Braille, ensuring that 
information made available online is accessible, and using other 
assistive technologies and methods to achieve effective communication;
    (iii) Administrative and financial management experience;
    (iv) Staffing and facilities sufficient to administer the program, 
including the ability to distribute equipment and provide related 
services to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind throughout the 
state, including those in remote areas;
    (v) Experience with the distribution of specialized CPE, especially 
to people who are deaf-blind;
    (vi) Experience in training consumers on how to use the equipment 
and how to set up the equipment for its effective use; and
    (vii) Familiarity with the telecommunications, Internet access, and 
advanced communications services that will be used with the distributed 
equipment.
    (3) Certification granted under this section shall remain in effect 
for five years. One year prior to the expiration of the certification, 
a program may apply for renewal of its certification as prescribed by 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (4) A certified program must notify the Commission within 60 days 
of any substantive change that bears on its ability to meet the 
qualifications necessary for certification under paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section.
    (5) A program may relinquish its certification by providing written 
notice to the Commission at least 90 days in advance of its intent to 
do so. This program must transfer NDBEDP-related data and equipment to 
the newly-certified state program within 30 days of its certification 
and comply with the reimbursement and reporting requirements prescribed 
by paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
    (c) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions shall apply:
    (1) Equipment. Hardware, software, and applications, whether 
separate or in combination, mainstream or specialized, needed by an 
individual who is deaf-blind to achieve access to telecommunications 
service, Internet access service, and advanced communications, 
including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and 
information services, as these services have been defined by the 
Communications Act.
    (2) Individual who is deaf-blind.
    (i) Any person:
    (A) Who has a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better 
eye with corrective lenses, or a field defect such that the peripheral 
diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 
20 degrees, or a progressive visual loss having a prognosis leading to 
one or both these conditions;
    (B) Who has a chronic hearing impairment so severe that most speech 
cannot be understood with optimum amplification, or a progressive 
hearing loss having a prognosis leading to this condition; and
    (C) For whom the combination of impairments described in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section cause extreme difficulty in 
attaining independence in daily life activities, achieving psychosocial 
adjustment, or obtaining a vocation.
    (ii) The definition in this paragraph also includes any individual 
who, despite the inability to be measured accurately for hearing and 
vision loss due to cognitive or behavioral constraints, or both, can be 
determined through functional and performance assessment to have severe 
hearing and visual disabilities that cause extreme difficulty in 
attaining independence in daily life activities, achieving psychosocial 
adjustment, or obtaining vocational objectives. An applicant's 
functional abilities with respect to using telecommunications, Internet 
access, and advanced communications services in various environments 
shall be

[[Page 32907]]

considered when determining whether the individual is deaf-blind under 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(B) and (C) of this section.
    (3) Specialized customer premises equipment (CPE). For purposes of 
this section, specialized CPE means equipment employed on the premises 
of a person, which is commonly used by individuals with disabilities to 
achieve access to telecommunications service, Internet access service, 
or advanced communications.
    (d) Eligibility criteria.
    (1) Verification of disability. Individuals claiming eligibility 
under the NDBEDP must provide verification of disability from a 
professional with direct knowledge of the individual's disability.
    (i) Such professionals may include, but are not limited to, 
community-based service providers, vision or hearing related 
professionals, vocational rehabilitation counselors, educators, 
audiologists, speech pathologists, hearing instrument specialists, and 
medical or health professionals.
    (ii) Such professionals must attest, either to the best of their 
knowledge or under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is an 
individual who is deaf-blind (as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section). Such professionals may also include, in the attestation, 
information about the individual's functional abilities to use 
telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications 
services in various settings.
    (iii) Existing documentation that a person is deaf-blind, such as 
an individualized education program (IEP) or a statement from a public 
or private agency, such as a Social Security determination letter, may 
serve as verification of disability.
    (iv) The verification of disability must include the attesting 
professional's full name, title, and contact information, including 
business name, address, phone number, and email address.
    (2) Verification of low income status. An individual claiming 
eligibility under the NDBEDP must provide verification that he or she 
has taxable income that does not exceed 400 percent of the Federal 
Poverty Guidelines or that he or she is enrolled in a federal program 
with an income eligibility requirement that is less than 400 percent of 
the Federal Poverty Guidelines, such as the Federal Public Housing 
Assistance or Section 8; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
formerly known as Food Stamps; Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program; Medicaid; National School Lunch Program's free lunch program; 
Supplemental Security Income; or Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families. The NDBEDP Administrator may identify state or other federal 
programs with income eligibility thresholds that do not exceed 400 
percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for determining income 
eligibility for participation in the NDBEDP. Where an applicant is not 
already enrolled in a qualifying low-income program, low-income 
eligibility may be verified by the certified program using appropriate 
and reasonable means.
    (3) Prohibition against requiring employment. No program certified 
under the NDBEDP may impose a requirement for eligibility in this 
program that an applicant be employed or actively seeking employment.
    (4) Access to communications services. A program certified under 
the NDBEDP may impose, as a program eligibility criterion, a 
requirement that telecommunications, Internet access, or advanced 
communications services are available for use by the applicant.
    (5) Age. A program certified under the NDBEDP may not establish 
criteria that exclude low-income individuals who are deaf-blind of a 
certain age from applying for or receiving equipment when the needs of 
such individuals are not being met through other available resources.
    (e) Equipment distribution and related services.
    (1) Each program certified under the NDBEDP must:
    (i) Distribute specialized CPE and provide related services needed 
to make telecommunications service, Internet access service, and 
advanced communications, including interexchange services or advanced 
telecommunications and information services, accessible to individuals 
who are deaf-blind;
    (ii) Obtain verification that NDBEDP applicants meet the definition 
of an individual who is deaf-blind contained in paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section at least once every three years and the income eligibility 
requirements contained in paragraph (d)(2) of this section at least 
once each year;
    (iii) Permit the transfer of a recipient's account and any control 
of the distributed equipment to another state's certified program when 
a recipient relocates to that state;
    (iv) Permit the transfer of a recipient's account and any control 
of the distributed equipment from another state's NDBEDP certified 
program when a recipient relocates to its state;
    (v) Prohibit recipients from transferring equipment received under 
the NDBEDP to another person through sale or otherwise, and include the 
following attestation on all consumer application forms:

    I certify that all information provided on this application, 
including information about my disability and income eligibility to 
receive equipment, is true, complete, and accurate to the best of my 
knowledge. Program officials have my permission to verify the 
information provided.
    If I am eligible for services, I agree to use these services 
solely for the purposes intended. I further understand that I may 
not sell, give, lend, or transfer interest in any equipment provided 
to me. Falsification of any records or failure to comply with these 
provisions will result in immediate termination of service. In 
addition, I understand that if I purposely provide false information 
I may be subject to legal action. I certify that I have read, 
understand, and accept all conditions associated with iCanConnect, 
the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program;

    (vi) Conduct outreach, in accessible formats, to inform their state 
residents about the NDBEDP, which may include the development and 
maintenance of a program Web site;
    (vii) Include a brief narrative description on its Web site of any 
criteria, priorities, or strategies to ensure the fair distribution of 
equipment to low-income residents who are deaf-blind;
    (viii) Engage an independent auditor to conduct an annual audit, 
submit a copy of the annual audit to the TRS Fund Administrator and the 
NDBEDP Administrator, and submit to audits as deemed appropriate by the 
Commission or its delegated authorities;
    (ix) Document compliance with all Commission requirements governing 
the NDBEDP, retain all records associated with the distribution of 
equipment and provision of related services under the NDBEDP, including 
records that support reimbursement claims as required under paragraph 
(f) of this section and that are needed to generate the reports 
required under paragraph (g) of this section, for a minimum of five 
years, and provide such documentation to the Commission upon request; 
and
    (ix) Comply with the reporting requirements contained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
    (2) Each program certified under the NDBEDP may not:
    (i) Impose restrictions on specific brands, models or types of 
communications technology that recipients may receive to access the 
communications services covered in this section;
    (ii) Disable or otherwise intentionally make it difficult for 
recipients to use certain capabilities, functions, or features on 
distributed equipment that

[[Page 32908]]

are needed to access the communications services covered in this 
section, or direct manufacturers or vendors of specialized CPE to 
disable or make it difficult for recipients to use certain 
capabilities, functions, or features on distributed equipment that are 
needed to access the communications services covered in this section; 
or
    (iii) Accept any type of financial arrangement from equipment 
vendors that could incentivize the purchase of particular equipment.
    (f) Payments to NDBEDP certified programs.
    (1) Programs certified under the NDBEDP shall be reimbursed for the 
cost of equipment that has been distributed to low-income individuals 
who are deaf blind and authorized related services, up to the state's 
funding allocation under this program as determined by the Commission 
or any entity authorized to act for the Commission on delegated 
authority.
    (2) Upon certification and at the beginning of each Fund year, 
state programs may elect to submit reimbursement claims on a monthly, 
quarterly, or semi-annual basis;
    (3) Within 30 days after the end of each reimbursement period 
during the Fund year, each certified program must submit documentation 
that supports its claim for reimbursement of the reasonable costs of 
the following:
    (i) Equipment and related expenses, including maintenance, repairs, 
warranties, returns, refurbishing, upgrading, and replacing equipment 
distributed to consumers;
    (ii) Individual needs assessments;
    (iii) Installation of equipment and individualized consumer 
training;
    (iv) Maintenance of an inventory of equipment that can be loaned to 
the consumer during periods of equipment repair;
    (v) Outreach efforts to inform state residents about the NDBEDP;
    (vi) Train-the-trainer activities, but not to exceed 2.5 percent of 
the certified program's funding allocation;
    (vii) Travel expenses; and
    (viii) Administration of the program, but not to exceed 15 percent 
of the certified program's funding allocation.
    (4) With each request for payment, the chief executive officer, 
chief financial officer, or other senior executive of the certified 
program, such as a manager or director, with first-hand knowledge of 
the accuracy and completeness of the claim in the request, must certify 
as follows:

    I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an 
officer of the above-named reporting entity, and that I have 
examined all cost data associated with equipment and related 
services for the claims submitted herein, and that all such data are 
true and an accurate statement of the business activities conducted 
pursuant to the NDBEDP by the above-named certified program.

    (g) Reporting requirements.
    (1) Each program certified under the NDBEDP must submit the 
following data electronically to the Commission, as instructed by the 
NDBEDP Administrator, every six months:
    (i) For each piece of equipment distributed, the full name of the 
equipment recipient and contact information, including the recipient's 
residential street and email addresses, and personal phone number;
    (ii) For each piece of equipment distributed, the full name of the 
professional attesting to the disability of the individual who is deaf-
blind and business contact information, including street and email 
addresses, and phone number;
    (iii) For each piece of equipment distributed, the model name, 
serial number, brand, function, and cost, the type of communications 
service with which it is used, and the type of relay service it can 
access;
    (iv) For each piece of equipment distributed, the amount of time, 
following any assessment conducted, that the requesting individual 
waited to receive that equipment;
    (v) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to assessing 
an individual's equipment needs;
    (vi) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to installing 
equipment and training deaf-blind individuals on using equipment;
    (vii) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to maintain, 
repair, cover under warranty, and refurbish equipment;
    (viii) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to outreach 
activities related to the NDBEDP, and the type of outreach efforts 
undertaken;
    (ix) The cost, time and any other resources allocated to upgrading 
the distributed equipment, along with the nature of such upgrades;
    (x) To the extent that the program has denied equipment requests 
made by their deaf-blind residents, a summary of the number and types 
of equipment requests denied and reasons for such denials;
    (xi) To the extent that the program has received complaints related 
to the program, a summary of the number and types of such complaints 
and their resolution; and
    (xii) The number of qualified applicants on waiting lists to 
receive equipment.
    (2) With each report, the chief executive officer, chief financial 
officer, or other senior executive of the certified program, such as a 
director or manager, with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and 
completeness of the information provided in the report, must certify as 
follows:

    I swear under penalty of perjury that I am (name and title), an 
officer of the above-named reporting entity, and that the entity has 
policies and procedures in place to ensure that recipients satisfy 
the NDBEDP eligibility requirements, that the entity is in 
compliance with the Commission's NDBEDP rules, that I have examined 
the foregoing reports and that all requested information has been 
provided and all statements of fact are true and an accurate 
statement of the business activities conducted pursuant to the 
NDBEDP by the above-named certified program.

    (h) Administration of the program. The Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau shall designate a Commission official as the NDBEDP 
Administrator to ensure the effective, efficient, and consistent 
administration of the program, and shall advise the TRS Fund 
Administrator on funding allocations and reallocations, payments, and 
any payment withholdings under the NDBEDP.
    (i) Complaints. Complaints against NDBEDP certified programs for 
alleged violations of this subpart may be either informal or formal.
    (1) Informal complaints.
    (i) An informal complaint may be transmitted to the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as letter, 
fax, telephone, TTY, or email.
    (ii) Content. An informal complaint shall include the name and 
address of the complainant; the name of the NDBEDP certified program 
against whom the complaint is made; a statement of facts supporting the 
complainant's allegation that the NDBEDP certified program has violated 
or is violating section 719 of the Act and/or the Commission's rules; 
the specific relief or satisfaction sought by the complainant; and the 
complainant's preferred format or method of response to the complaint 
by the Commission and the NDBEDP certified program, such as by letter, 
fax, telephone, TTY, or email.
    (iii) Service. The Commission shall promptly forward any complaint 
meeting the requirements of this subsection to the NDBEDP certified 
program named in the complaint and call upon the program to satisfy or 
answer the complaint within the time specified by the Commission.

[[Page 32909]]

    (iv) Review and disposition of informal complaints.
    (A) Where it appears from the NDBEDP certified program's answer, or 
from other communications with the parties, that an informal complaint 
has been satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider the 
matter closed without response to the complainant or NDBEDP certified 
program. In all other cases, the Commission shall inform the parties of 
its review and disposition of a complaint filed under this subpart. 
Where practicable, this information shall be transmitted to the 
complainant and NDBEDP certified program in the manner requested by the 
complainant.
    (B) A complainant unsatisfied with the NDBEDP certified program's 
response to the informal complaint and the Commission's disposition of 
the informal complaint may file a formal complaint with the Commission 
pursuant to paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
    (2) Formal complaints. Formal complaints against an NDBEDP 
certified program may be filed in the form and in the manner prescribed 
under Sec. Sec.  1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter. Commission staff 
may grant waivers of, or exceptions to, particular requirements under 
Sec. Sec.  1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter for good cause shown; 
provided, however, that such waiver authority may not be exercised in a 
manner that relieves, or has the effect of relieving, a complainant of 
the obligation under Sec. Sec.  1.720 and 1.728 of this chapter to 
allege facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute a violation 
or violations of section 719 of the Act or this subpart.
    (3) Actions by the Commission on its own motion. The Commission may 
on its own motion conduct such inquiries and hold such proceedings as 
it may deem necessary to enforce the requirements of this subpart and 
section 719 of the Communications Act. The procedures to be followed by 
the Commission shall, unless specifically prescribed in the Act and the 
Commission's rules, be such as in the opinion of the Commission will 
best serve the purposes of such inquiries and proceedings.
    (j) Whistleblower protections.
    (1) NDBEDP certified programs shall permit, without reprisal in the 
form of an adverse personnel action, purchase or contract cancellation 
or discontinuance, eligibility disqualification, or otherwise, any 
current or former employee, agent, contractor, manufacturer, vendor, 
applicant, or recipient, to disclose to a designated official of the 
certified program, the NDBEDP Administrator, the TRS Fund 
Administrator, the Commission's Office of Inspector General and 
Enforcement Bureau, or to any federal or state law enforcement entity, 
any known or suspected violations of the Act or Commission rules, or 
any other activity that the reporting person reasonably believes to be 
unlawful, wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive, or that otherwise could 
result in the improper distribution of equipment, provision of 
services, or billing to the TRS Fund.
    (2) NDBEDP certified programs shall include these whistleblower 
protections with the information they provide about the program in any 
employee handbooks or manuals, on their Web sites, and in other 
appropriate publications.
    (k) Suspension or revocation of certification.
    (1) The Commission may suspend or revoke NDBEDP certification if, 
after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Commission determines 
that such certification is no longer warranted.
    (2) In the event of suspension or revocation, the Commission shall 
take such steps as may be necessary, consistent with this subpart, to 
ensure continuity of the NDBEDP for the state whose program has been 
suspended or revoked.
    (3) The Commission may, at its discretion and on its own motion, 
require a certified program to submit documentation demonstrating 
ongoing compliance with the Commission's rules.
[FR Doc. 2015-13718 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P