Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, 65948-65979 [2016-22713]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65948-65979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22713]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 10-210; FCC 16-101]


Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and 
Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-
Blind Individuals

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts rules to convert the National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program (NDBEDP) from a pilot program to a permanent 
program. The NDBEDP supports the distribution of communications devices 
to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.

DATES: The addition of 47 CFR 64.6201, 64.6203, and 64.6205 of the 
Commission's rules are effective July 1, 2017. The addition of 47 CFR 
part 64, subpart GG, consisting of Sec. Sec.  64.6207, 64.6209, 
64.6211, 64.6213, 64.6215, 64.6217, and 64.6219, contains information 
collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for 
those sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosaline Crawford, Disability Rights 
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2075 or 
email Rosaline.Crawford@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 
Individuals, Report and Order, document FCC 16-101, adopted on August 
4, 2016, and released on August 5, 2016, in CG Docket No. 10-210. The 
full text of document FCC 16-101 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 16-101 can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/ndbedp. To request materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov

[[Page 65949]]

or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (844) 432-2275 (videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 16-101 contains new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on 
the information collection requirements contained in document FCC 16-
101 as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 
Law 104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought comment on how the 
Commission might ``further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' See 
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, published at 80 FR 32885, 
June 10, 2015 (NDBEDP 2015 NPRM).

Synopsis

    1. The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 
Act (CVAA) added section 719 to the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (the Act). Public Law 111-260, 105, 124 Stat. 2751, 2762 
(2010); technical corrections Public Law 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 
(2010); 47 U.S.C. 620. Section 719 of the Act directs the Commission to 
promulgate rules that define as eligible for up to $10 million of 
support annually from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service 
Fund (TRS Fund) those programs approved by the Commission for the 
distribution of specialized customer premises equipment (SCPE) designed 
to make telecommunications service, Internet access service, and 
advanced communications accessible by low-income individuals who are 
deaf-blind. Since July 2012, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) has implemented the NDBEDP, also known 
as ``iCanConnect,'' as a pilot program by certifying and overseeing 53 
entities, collectively referred to as ``certified programs'' or ``state 
programs,'' that distribute equipment in each state, plus the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 
Individuals, Report and Order, published at 76 FR 26641, May 9, 2011 
(NDBEDP Pilot Program Order); 47 CFR 64.610 (NDBEDP pilot program 
rules). Also since 2012, a national outreach coordinator selected by 
the Bureau has provided extensive outreach to support the distribution 
efforts of these state programs. In addition, during the pilot program, 
the Bureau released guidance to assist state programs with how to 
comply with the Commission's NDBEDP rules. See, e.g., CGB, NDBEDP 
Frequently Asked Questions (NDBEDP FAQ); CGB, Examples of Reimbursable 
Expenses (July 2, 2012) (NDBEDP Expenses).
    2. The Commission released the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM seeking comment on 
specific requirements for the creation of a permanent NDBEDP, including 
its program structure, eligibility requirements, covered equipment and 
services, funding allocations, reporting, and other considerations. The 
Commission also extended the pilot program through June 2017. 
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 
Individuals, Order, published at 81 FR 36181, June 6, 2016 (2016 
Extension Order).
    3. The rules adopted in document FCC 16-101 are designed to ensure 
that, going forward, the NDBEDP can efficiently and effectively achieve 
its goals of enhancing communications access for low-income individuals 
who are deaf-blind through the distribution of equipment and the 
provision of support services that are needed for the successful use of 
the equipment they receive. Through these rules, the Commission 
recognizes that the needs of each person who is deaf-blind are unique 
with respect to the severity and type of his or her hearing and vision 
loss, and that each program can best achieve Congress's goals of 
brining communications access into the lives of low-income individuals 
who are deaf-blind. At the same time, the rules contain various 
measures and safeguards to attain the greatest efficiencies and to 
prevent this program from becoming subject to fraud, waste or abuse.

Program Structure

    4. Geographic-Based Program Certification. After careful 
consideration of the record, the Commission adopts a rule that retains 
the current structure of the NDBEDP to certify one entity for the 
administration of the program, distribution of equipment, and provision 
of related services within each state and territory covered by the 
NDBEDP. The Commission concludes that a local, state-based structure is 
most able to provide services specifically designed to address the 
unique needs of each state's deaf-blind residents, will be easier for 
consumers to access, and can facilitate coordination with other local 
and in-state agencies and resources. Therefore, for the permanent 
NDBEDP, the Commission directs the Bureau to certify one entity for 
each state and territory to receive funding for the administration of 
its program, distribution of equipment, and provision of related 
services to eligible residents.
    5. Expansion to Additional U.S. Territories. In the NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, the Commission proposed that NDBEDP funding be extended to the 
U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana 
Islands. The Commission noted that, just like the 53 states and 
territories covered by the pilot program, the residents of each of 
these U.S. territories are also eligible to make and receive calls 
through one or more forms of relay services that are supported by the 
same TRS Fund that supports the NDBEDP. In light of the demonstrated 
need and record support for this proposal, the Commission extends the 
NDBEDP to these territories. While the Commission directs the Bureau to 
certify one entity for each of these territories, a single entity may 
apply for certification to serve the residents of one, two, or all 
three of these jurisdictions. The Commission notes that, given the 
relatively small funding allocations and uniquely small populations of 
these remote jurisdictions located in the South Pacific region, 
certifying the same entity to serve all three jurisdictions may enable 
the consolidation of administrative functions, as well as coordination 
and conservation of resources.
    6. Permanent Program Certification. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission proposed that, during the 30-day period following the 
effective date of the final rules, each entity certified under the 
pilot program be required to reapply for certification or notify the 
Commission of its intent not to participate in the permanent NDBEDP, 
and to permit other entities to apply for certification.
    7. The Commission believes that expanding the pool of applicants 
for NDBEDP certification will enhance the quality of entities selected 
and will help address concerns raised by those commenters who wish to 
give more in-state entities an opportunity to apply for

[[Page 65950]]

certification. While the Commission acknowledges that the experience 
gained by entities certified under the pilot program may weigh in favor 
of their recertification, it is not persuaded that experience is the 
only factor that should be considered when determining appropriate 
management for each of the states under the permanent NDBEDP. Rather, 
given that the next certification period will be for five years, and 
that the Commission now amends some of the rules that will apply to 
these programs, it believes it is necessary and appropriate to open up 
the application process to both new and currently certified entities.
    8. The Commission further concludes that its adoption of new rules 
for the permanent program necessitates receiving new applications from 
each currently certified entity interested in continuing to operate 
under the NDBEDP. Accordingly, the Commission will require each 
currently certified entity seeking to continue providing equipment and 
services to submit a new application with sufficient detail to 
demonstrate its continued ability to meet all of the Commission's 
certification criteria, and to affirm its commitment to comply with all 
Commission rules governing the permanent program. An entity seeking 
certification for the first time also must submit an application with 
sufficient detail to demonstrate its ability to meet all of the 
Commission's certification criteria and a commitment to comply with all 
Commission requirements governing the NDBEDP. An applicant may 
demonstrate its ability to meet all criteria for certification either 
directly or in coordination with other programs or entities. In 
reviewing each application, the Commission will consider, among other 
things, the extent to which a currently certified entity has 
effectively implemented the program and achieved compliance with the 
Commission's rules. The Commission believes that considerations of 
equity and fairness require it to adopt this approach, as it will allow 
the Commission to compare and contrast the qualifications of multiple 
applicants based on the Commission's current selection criteria and 
NDBEDP requirements.
    9. To ensure sufficient time is provided for the application 
process, the Commission requires both new and incumbent entities 
seeking certification under the permanent NDBEDP to apply for 
certification within 60 days after the effective date of the 
certification rules adopted in this proceeding. A 60-day application 
period also is consistent with the period used for the NDBEDP pilot 
program. In addition, the Commission requires any entity certified 
under the pilot program that does not wish to participate in the 
permanent NDBEDP to notify the Commission of such intent within 60 days 
after the effective date of the certification rules adopted by document 
FCC 16-101.
    10. The Commission directs the Bureau to announce the timing of 
this 60-day period by public notice. The Commission also directs the 
Bureau to announce, by public notice, the identity of all applicants 
who request certification for each state. This announcement will put 
existing certified programs on notice of competing applications, as 
well as identify those jurisdictions, if any, where no entity has 
applied for certification under the permanent program. The Bureau may 
extend the application period for those jurisdictions where no entity 
has applied for initial certification under the permanent NDBEDP during 
the 60-day period. The Commission further directs the Bureau to take 
appropriate steps to minimize any possible disruption of service by 
providing as much advance notice as possible about its selection of the 
entities certified under the permanent NDBEDP.
    11. Certification Selection Criteria. The Commission will continue 
to use the certification criteria established for the pilot program in 
the permanent NDBEDP. Based on the Commission's experience with the 
pilot program, it believes that the expertise and experience these 
criteria require have been effective. As further detailed below, the 
Commission declines to establish minimum standards for program 
personnel, as the Commission believes that its certification criteria 
and other program standards, including new requirements, will be 
sufficient to ensure that certified programs are effectively and 
efficiently managed and able to satisfy the program's goals.
    12. Program Personnel Requirements. Deaf-blind individuals are 
diverse with respect to their modes of communication, which can 
include, but are not limited to, American Sign Language, spoken 
English, and Braille. This population also uses a wide variety of 
communication technologies, including, but not limited to, refreshable 
Braille displays, print magnifiers, and screen readers. Given this 
diversity, some commenters request that minimum linguistic and other 
competency and training requirements be added to the Commission's 
certification criteria, to ensure that certified program personnel are 
able to meet the needs of the full spectrum of people who are deaf-
blind. The Commission concludes, however, that the record does not 
support establishing such additional requirements for program personnel 
at this time because the existing criteria sufficiently serves program 
participants. As the record reflects, there is already a shortage of 
personnel who are sufficiently trained to work with people who are 
deaf-blind in certain parts of the country, and establishing 
additional, more restrictive criteria could exacerbate this issue. To 
the extent that effective communication for a particular individual 
cannot be met by in-house program personnel, certified programs may 
supplement such personnel by acquiring, as needed, qualified 
interpreter services and other accommodations. Accordingly, rather than 
adopt new program personnel criteria in the permanent NDBEDP, the 
Commission will continue permitting applicants for certification to 
demonstrate ``[e]xpertise in the field of deaf-blindness,'' 47 CFR 
64.610(b)(3)(i), and ``[t]he ability to communicate effectively with 
people who are deaf-blind,'' 47 CFR 64.610(b)(3)(ii), in a variety of 
ways to serve the full spectrum of individuals who are deaf-blind.
    13. Administrative and Financial Management Experience. The 
Commission adds administrative and financial management experience to 
the certification criteria because it expects it will help to ensure 
that applicants have the necessary skills and resources to effectively 
operate a state's NDBEDP certified program, which in turn, will reduce 
the number of programs that relinquish their certifications. For 
example, applicants should have experience and expertise in managing 
programmatic funds, recordkeeping, and generally accepted accounting 
principles. The Commission agrees that applicants for certification 
should be required to demonstrate that they have access to financial 
expertise that allows for both the necessary cash flow and the 
administrative coordination to support the equipment purchase/control/
inventory processes, the reimbursement process, and the annual audit, 
in addition to administrative expertise.
    14. Improper Incentives. Every aspect of the administration and 
operation of the NDBEDP must be conducted in a manner that promotes the 
integrity of the TRS Fund, and instils the highest public trust and 
confidence in the NDBEDP, the TRS Fund, and the Commission. To that 
end, each certified program, including its directors, officers, 
employees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, agents, and all 
other representatives are directed to

[[Page 65951]]

avoid any organizational or personal conflicts of interest or the 
appearance of a conflict of interest in all aspects of their 
administration and operation of the NDBEDP. The Commission adopts its 
proposal to require each entity seeking certification to identify and 
disclose to the Commission any relationship, arrangement, or agreement 
that potentially or actually constitutes a conflict of interest, but 
modifies it to require such applicants to identify and report all such 
potential or actual conflicts stemming from relationships, 
arrangements, and agreements with providers of related services, such 
as assessments and training, as well as equipment manufacturers. Such 
disclosures should be made in an entity's application for 
certification, including during the pendency of the application. 
Applicants learning of a potential or actual conflict while their 
applications are pending must disclose such conflicts immediately upon 
learning of such conflict, to prevent delays in the Commission's 
certification review. The Commission further clarifies that when an 
applicant for certification reports such an arrangement, it must also 
indicate the steps it will take to eliminate such an actual or 
potential conflict or to minimize the associated risks. If necessary, 
the Bureau or Commission may make its own determination as to whether 
the conflict requires disqualification of the entity to manage a state 
program or whether the entity should be required to take certain steps 
to eliminate the actual or potential conflict or to minimize the 
associated risks.
    15. Geographic Eligibility. During the pilot program, the Bureau 
selected entities to participate in the NDBEDP that are located both 
within and outside of the states that they serve. 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. The Commission will maintain this flexible approach, 
which the record supports, for the permanent NDBEDP. The Commission 
agrees with commenters that certifying an out-of-state entity, which 
can then work with in-state partners to provide services, functions 
well in those states without sufficient resources of their own. While 
the Commission is not persuaded of the need to give preference or 
automatic priority to in-state entities at this time, it will consider 
the benefits that a local entity can bring to its own state's residents 
in making its certification selections, especially when weighing the 
merits of equally qualified applicants.
    16. Non-substantive Rule Change. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission proposed a non-substantial edit that would insert the words 
``training consumers on'' in certification criterion (v). 47 CFR 
64.610(b)(3)(v). The Commission adopts this change, so that the new 
clause reads: ``Experience in training consumers on how to use 
Equipment and how to set up Equipment for its effective use.''
    17. Duration of Certification. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission proposed that NDBEDP programs be certified for a period of 
five years. The Commission believes that limiting the duration of an 
entity's certification provides a natural opportunity to review the 
entity's performance under the program and to verify that it is still 
qualified should it seek renewal. The Commission is also persuaded that 
adopting a shorter certification period would be burdensome and 
possibly disruptive to program participants. Therefore, the Commission 
adopts a five-year certification period for each state program, to 
start upon the effective date of the permanent NDBEDP. Such period will 
terminate five years after that starting date, and certification 
reviews and selections will occur every five years thereafter. This 
process has been effective for the TRS program, and the Commission 
expects that it will provide similar efficiencies for the NDBEDP.
    18. In the event that an entity selected at the start of a five-
year term relinquishes its certification or its certification is 
suspended or revoked before completing its term, the Commission will 
permit the successor entity to complete, but not exceed, the five-year 
term initiated by its predecessor. The Commission notes that during the 
NDBEDP pilot program, certifications granted by the Bureau initially 
and to successor entities have varied in their duration, but they all 
have had a common end date--the end of the pilot program. The 
Commission believes that retaining a common end date in the permanent 
NDBEDP will facilitate the Commission's administration and oversight of 
the program, and help to provide certainty to the states and 
territories participating in this program. The Bureau may announce 
selections for the new certification period on a rolling basis as these 
are processed, but the full five-year certification period will end at 
the appointed time every five years.
    19. Certification Renewals. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission 
proposed that one year prior to the expiration of each five-year 
certification period, each new applicant or each incumbent that has 
been certified to operate a state program intending to stay in the 
NDBEDP be required to apply for or request renewal of its 
certification. As the Commission concluded with respect to applications 
for initial certification under the permanent NDBEDP, it believes that 
expanding the pool of applicants during the certification renewal 
process beyond the incumbent entities will provide a fresh opportunity 
to enhance the quality of state programs. The Commission also believes 
that a one-year period will provide sufficient time for the renewal 
process, based on its experience with state renewals under the TRS 
program. For these reasons, the Commission adopts its proposal. The 
Commission further directs the Bureau to announce, by public notice, 
the identity of all applicants who request such certification. As with 
initial applications, this announcement will put existing certified 
programs on notice of competing applications, as well as identifying 
those jurisdictions, if any, where no entity has applied for a renewal 
or as a new entrant. The Bureau may extend the application period for 
those jurisdictions where no qualified entity has applied for renewal 
or as a new entrant. The Commission further directs the Bureau to take 
appropriate steps to minimize any possible disruption of service by 
providing as much advance notice as possible about its selection of the 
entities certified under the permanent NDBEDP.
    20. Prohibition on Financial Arrangements or Incentives. The 
Commission will continue to prohibit certified programs from entering 
into any financial relationship, arrangement, or agreement that creates 
improper incentives to purchase particular equipment. In addition, the 
obligation imposed on applicants for certification to disclose any 
actual or potential conflicts of interest with equipment manufacturers 
or vendors, as well as the steps the entity will take to eliminate such 
actual or potential conflict or to minimize the associated risks, will 
carry forward to entities once they have received certification under 
the permanent NDBEDP. The Commission requires such disclosure to be 
made to the Commission within 30 days after the entity learns or should 
have learned of such actual or potential conflict of interest. The 
Commission may suspend or revoke an NDBEDP certification or may require 
a certified entity, as a condition of continued certification, to take 
additional steps to eliminate, or to minimize the risks associated 
with, an

[[Page 65952]]

actual or potential conflict of interest, if relationships, 
arrangements, or agreements affecting the entity are likely to impede 
its objectivity in the distribution of equipment or its ability to 
comply with NDBEDP requirements. This requirement will ensure that the 
Commission is informed of and can address expeditiously and 
appropriately any conflicts that come into being or are discovered 
after certification is granted.
    21. Obligation to Report Substantive Changes. In the NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, the Commission proposed to require each state program, once 
certified, to report to the Commission any substantive change within 60 
days of when such change occurs. 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 a program's ability to 
distribute equipment across its state or significant changes in its 
staff and facilities. In light of commenter support for this proposal 
and because the Commission believes that this requirement can help to 
ensure that programs continue to meet its criteria for certification 
when substantive changes occur, the Commission adopts this requirement, 
as modified for clarity, for a certified program to ``notify the 
Commission within 60 days of any substantive change that bears directly 
on its ability to meet the qualifications necessary for 
certification.''
    22. Relinquishing Program Certification. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 
the Commission proposed to require outgoing entities to provide written 
notice to the Commission at least 90 days in advance of their intent to 
relinquish their certifications. Given commenters support for this 
proposal, and to minimize the risk of a lapse in service to deaf-blind 
individuals that might result during any future transitions from an 
outgoing entity to a successor entity, the Commission adopts this 
requirement for the permanent NDBEDP. The Commission further requires 
that any entity seeking to relinquish its certification include in such 
notice its reason for exiting the program, including its proposed 
departure date. The Commission believes that receiving information 
about the reasons for exiting the program will help inform the 
Commission on ways to improve the administration of the NDBEDP. 
Finally, the Commission requires that such notice be filed in the 
docket to this proceeding, so that it becomes public, and that a 
written copy be provided electronically to the NDBEDP Administrator and 
the TRS Fund Administrator.
    23. Upon receiving notice of an entity's plans to relinquish 
certification during the NDBEDP pilot program, the Bureau has provided 
a 15-day period during which it has invited applications from new 
entities interested in replacing the outgoing entity. Although the 15-
day deadline was established to expedite replacement and ensure that 
all interested parties have an adequate opportunity to apply for 
certification, the Commission directs the Bureau to provide a minimum 
of 30 days for the receipt of such applications. The Commission 
believes that a 30-day period is reasonable, especially given its 
adoption of a 90-day notice requirement for any entity intending to 
relinquish its certification.
    24. Suspension or Revocation of Certification. 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. To ensure that the Commission can 
act expeditiously and effectively to replace a certified entity should 
that become necessary, the Commission retains the authority to suspend 
or revoke an entity's certification when it determines that an entity 
is no longer qualified for certification. Reasons for suspension or 
revocation may include, but are not limited to, failure to comply with 
the Commission's rules and policies, failure to take such actions as 
are necessary to fulfill the objectives of the program to provide 
access to covered services by low-income individuals who are deaf-blind 
(including necessary assessments, equipment distribution, and 
training), failure to accurately report program expenses, distribution 
of equipment to individuals who do not meet the program eligibility 
requirements, fraudulent or abusive practices, and misrepresentation or 
lack of candor in statements to the Commission.
    25. The Commission amends the rule, however, to provide additional 
clarification regarding the procedure for making a determination of 
suspension or revocation. First, in order to initiate the suspension or 
revocation of an entity's certification, the Commission must provide 
notice to the certified entity, which shall contain the reasons for the 
proposed suspension or revocation of certification and the applicable 
suspension or revocation procedures. The Commission will provide the 
certified entity 30 days to present written arguments and any relevant 
documentation to the Commission as to why suspension or revocation of 
certification is not warranted. The Commission will then review such 
arguments and documentation and make a determination on the merits as 
to whether to suspend or revoke the entity's certification, which shall 
include the dates by which such certification shall be suspended or 
terminated, as well as any conditions that may accompany a suspension. 
Failure of the notified entity to respond within the 30 days provided 
will result in automatic suspension or revocation, whichever is 
applicable, unless such entity seeks a waiver or extension of this 
period in a timely fashion, i.e., prior to the expiration of the 30-day 
period.
    26. Action to suspend or revoke an entity's certification may be 
taken either by the Commission, or the Bureau, on delegated authority. 
In either case, the action will be subject to the rules normally 
applicable to reconsideration or review of actions taken by a bureau on 
delegated authority or by the full Commission. See 47 CFR 1.101 through 
1.117. A suspension of certification will remain in effect until the 
expiration date, if any, or until the fulfillment of conditions stated 
in a suspension decision. A revocation will be effective for the 
remaining portion of the current certification period, but will not 
preclude an entity from applying for certification for the next five-
year period unless so stated in the revocation decision.
    27. These procedures are similar in some respects to those for 
suspension and debarment of an individual or entity receiving Universal 
Service Fund (USF) support. See 47 CFR 54.8. Unlike the USF suspension 
and debarment procedures, however, the procedures the Commission adopts 
for the NDBEDP do not contemplate that participation in the NDBEDP will 
automatically be suspended at the beginning of the suspension or 
revocation process. See 47 CFR 54.8(e)(1). Because an immediate 
suspension of an entity certified for the NDBEDP could unnecessarily 
interrupt the provision of equipment or related services to applicants 
who may have no alternative source of assistance, the determination of 
whether to immediately suspend an entity's participation pending 
completion of suspension or revocation proceedings will be made on a 
case-by-case basis, considering the severity of the alleged rule 
violations and other relevant factors. Rather, to minimize disruption, 
the Commission retains the pilot program provision allowing the 
Commission or the Bureau to take appropriate and necessary steps to 
ensure continuity of service for

[[Page 65953]]

equipment applicants and recipients in the affected state. The 
Commission believes that these suspension and revocation procedures 
will satisfy due process requirements by providing the affected program 
with an opportunity to present objections, arguments, and 
documentation, will maintain some continuity of service for the 
affected consumers, and will ensure that the Commission can act 
relatively quickly to resume the effective provision of equipment and 
related service to consumers.
    28. Obligations of Outgoing Entities--Compliance with NDBEDP 
Requirements. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission proposed to 
require entities that relinquish their certifications to comply with 
NDBEDP requirements needed for the ongoing functioning of the program 
that they are exiting, including the submission of final reimbursement 
claims and six-month reports. Because the Commission believes this 
requirement is necessary to maintain program integrity, it adopts this 
requirement for all outgoing entities, regardless of the reason for 
such entity's departure. Specifically, this obligation will apply to 
entities that notify the Commission of their intent not to participate 
under the permanent NDBEDP, reapply but are not selected for the 
permanent NDBEDP, do not have their certifications under the permanent 
NDBEDP renewed, relinquish their certifications in the middle of their 
term, or have their certifications revoked by the Commission. The 
Commission amends its rules to incorporate this requirement. The NDBEDP 
Administrator may allocate funds or reallocate unused funds, if 
necessary and available, to reimburse an outgoing entity's reasonable 
administrative costs to comply with these NDBEDP requirements, rather 
than reimbursing those costs from funds allocated or assigned to the 
successor entity.
    29. Obligations of Outgoing Entities--Transfer of Data and 
Inventory. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, to minimize the impact of 
transitions on consumers, the Commission proposed that a certified 
entity that relinquishes its certification prior to completion of its 
term or does not seek recertification at the end of its five-year term 
be required to transfer NDBEDP-purchased equipment, information, files, 
and other data to its successor within 30 days after the effective date 
of the successor entity's certification. Because the Commission 
believes this mandate will help to ensure a smooth transition to the 
successor entity and reduce any potential for a lapse in service, it 
adopts this requirement for all outgoing entities, regardless of the 
reason for such entity's departure. Specifically, an outgoing certified 
program shall transfer to the newly-certified state program, within 30 
days after the effective date of the newly-certified state program's 
certification, all consumer data, records, and information for the 
previous five years associated with the distribution of equipment and 
provision of related services by the outgoing certified program. In the 
event of a delay in the selection of a successor state program that may 
result in the lapse of a state program, the outgoing certified program 
would be required to effect such transfer after the outgoing certified 
program's tenure has ended. In addition, the Commission requires the 
transfer of all NDBEDP-purchased equipment and materials that remain in 
the outgoing entity's inventory (e.g., equipment purchased for 
distribution to consumers, for assessment and training, to be loaned to 
consumers during periods of equipment repair, or for any other NDBEDP 
purpose, but not equipment that has been distributed to individuals), 
along with an inventory list of all equipment and other data, records, 
and information pertaining to this inventory. The outgoing entity shall 
also report to the NDBEDP Administrator that such equipment and records 
have been transferred to the new entity in accordance with these 
requirements, after which the NDBEDP Administrator shall inform the TRS 
Fund Administrator that such transfer has taken place. The TRS Fund 
Administrator shall not make final payment to the outgoing entity until 
the outgoing entity has satisfied all of the requirements discussed 
herein. As discussed further below, the Commission further requires 
each certified entity--as a measure of privacy--to provide to consumers 
who apply for equipment a notification regarding the transfer of such 
data, records, and information. Specifically, each entity must inform 
its applicants that their personally identifiable information (PII) 
will be transferred to a successor in the event that the state's 
program is transferred to a different certified entity.
    30. Obligations of Outgoing Entities--Notification to Consumers. 
During the pilot program, when a state program has voluntarily 
relinquished its certification, the Bureau has released a public notice 
to invite applications for replacements, and then a second public 
notice to announce the successor entity. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on how best to ensure that consumers are 
informed when the entity certified to operate their state's NDBEDP 
program changes. Given the general agreement among commenters, the 
Commission adopts a rule requiring each outgoing certified program, 
regardless of the reason for the outgoing certified program's 
departure, to provide notification about the newly-certified state 
program to state residents who are either in the process of obtaining 
equipment or related services, or have received equipment during the 
previous three-year period. Such notice shall be given within 30 days 
of the effective date of the newly-certified state program's 
certification. In the event of a delay in the selection of a successor 
state program that may result in the lapse of a state program, the 
outgoing certified program may be required to provide such notification 
after the outgoing certified program's tenure has ended. The Commission 
concludes that this obligation needs to rest with the outgoing entity 
because it is this entity with whom consumers will have had prior 
contact. Such notifications must be conveyed to consumers in accessible 
formats (e.g., by email, in large print format mailed to the consumer's 
last known mailing address, by phone call, text message, or in-person, 
as necessary to ensure effective communication). The outgoing entity 
shall further report to the NDBEDP Administrator that consumers have 
been notified in an accessible format. The TRS Fund Administrator shall 
not make final payment to the outgoing entity until the outgoing entity 
has satisfied this requirement. In the event that the outgoing entity 
fails to provide such notice within the 30-day period, the Commission 
shall require the incoming entity to provide such notification to 
consumers within 30 days of when the incoming entity receives the 
consumer records from the outgoing entity.
    31. Implementation of the Permanent NDBEDP and Termination of the 
Pilot Program. Because adoption of the permanent NDBEDP rules involves 
new information collection requirements that are subject to approval by 
OMB under the PRA, the rules that are subject to the PRA will become 
effective on the date specified in a notice published in the Federal 
Register announcing OMB approval. At that time, the Bureau will 
announce by public notice the timing of the 60-day period for new and 
incumbent entities to apply for certification to participate in the 
permanent NDBEDP. Certifications to participate in the permanent NDBEDP

[[Page 65954]]

will not become effective before July 1, 2017.
    32. Section 64.610(k) of the Commission's rules provides for 
expiration of the NDBEDP pilot program rules at the termination of the 
pilot program. 47 CFR 64.610(k). The Commission clarifies that the 
pilot program will not terminate until after all reports have been 
submitted, all payments and adjustments have been made, all wind-down 
activities have been completed, and no issues with the regard to the 
NDBEDP pilot program remain pending. Thus, the rules the Commission 
adopts in document FCC 16-101 will apply to the permanent NDBEDP only 
and not to the pilot program.

Consumer Eligibility

    33. Section 719 of the Act requires the Commission to limit 
participation in the NDBEDP to individuals who are deaf-blind--as this 
term is defined by the Helen Keller National Center Act (HKNC Act)--and 
low income. 47 U.S.C. 620(a), (b). In this part, the Commission (1) 
establishes criteria to determine eligibility as an individual who is 
``deaf-blind'' under the HKNC Act; (2) adopts rules for verifying 
eligibility under the definition of ``deaf-blind'' based on a 
professional's attestation or existing documentation; (3) sets low-
income eligibility to not exceed 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines 
(FPG); (4) provides guidance on the calculation of income for 
determining low-income eligibility; (5) adopts rules for verifying low-
income eligibility based on participation in other federal programs 
with income threshold requirements at or below 400% of the FPG or by 
other means for applicants who are not enrolled in a qualifying 
program; and (6) addresses other eligibility criteria as discussed 
below.
    34. Definition of Individuals who are Deaf-Blind. The HKNC Act 
defines an individual who is ``deaf-blind'' as any individual:

    (A)(i) 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; (ii) 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 (iii) for whom the 
combination of impairments described in clauses (i) and (ii) cause 
extreme difficulty in attaining independence in daily life 
activities, achieving psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining a 
vocation;
    (B) 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; or
    (C) meets such other requirements as the Secretary [of 
Education] may prescribe by regulation.

29 U.S.C. 1905(2). In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission 
interpreted the HKNC Act definitions of ``deaf-blind'' to allow 
consideration of an applicant's functional abilities to use 
telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications 
services in various environments. The Commission believes that this 
interpretation can best achieve Congress's overall goal of ensuring the 
accessibility of communications technologies for the deaf-blind 
population, and therefore retains it for purposes of defining who is 
eligible to receive equipment and related services under the permanent 
NDBEDP.
    35. The HKNC Act sets forth three independent definitions that can 
be used to determine whether a person is ``deaf-blind.'' The first 
definition contains three prongs that must be satisfied. 29 U.S.C. 
1905(2)(A). The first of these requires an assessment of the 
individual's vision, and provides clear, measurable standards for loss 
of visual acuity, to which the Commission is bound to apply. 29 U.S.C. 
1905(2)(A)(i). The first prong also includes a provision for a 
progressive visual loss having a prognosis leading to one or both of 
the vision standards described. 29 U.S.C. 1905(2)(A)(i). The second 
prong asks whether the individual has a hearing loss so severe ``that 
most speech cannot be understood with optimum amplification.'' 29 
U.S.C. 1905(2)(A)(ii). Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission 
has looked to this prong to allow consideration of the extent to which 
the individual can perceive speech over the telephone. The third prong 
asks whether the individual's combined vision and hearing losses 
``cause extreme difficulty in attaining independence in daily life 
activities, achieving psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining a 
vocation.'' 29 U.S.C. 1905(2)(A)(iii). During the pilot, the Commission 
has construed this prong as well to permit consideration of 
communications-related activities, which are necessary for having 
independence in daily activities.
    36. The second definition contained in the HKNC Act applies to 
individuals for whom measurements of hearing and vision loss may be 
impeded due to cognitive or behavioral constraints. For these 
individuals, a determination of deaf-blindness may be achieved through 
``functional and performance assessment'' that shows the individual 
``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.'' 29 U.S.C. 1905(2)(B). The third definition is open-ended, 
as it permits an individual to be classified as someone who is deaf-
blind if such individual meets other requirements prescribed by the 
Secretary of Education by regulation. 29 U.S.C. 1905(2)(C).
    37. The Commission retains for the permanent NDBEDP the definition 
of ``deaf-blind'' that has been applied in the NDBEDP pilot program. 
The Commission notes that this definition incorporates the first two 
definitional standards into the Commission's rules, but not the third, 
which permits the Secretary of Education to prescribe other 
requirements by regulation, because the Commission cannot predict 
whether such regulations would be appropriate for application to the 
NDBEDP. The Commission concludes that it has the authority to permit 
eligibility determinations under the NDBEDP to consider an applicant's 
functional abilities to use telecommunications, Internet access, and 
advanced communications services in various environments because it 
continues to believe that consideration of these abilities is in 
keeping with Congress's overall goal of ensuring access to such 
technologies by the full range of deaf-blind individuals for whom the 
program is intended.
    38. Verification that an Individual is Deaf-Blind. The NDBEDP pilot 
program rules require individuals seeking equipment under the NDBEDP to 
provide 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 that individual's disability to attest that 
such applicant is deaf-blind, as this term is defined in the 
Commission's rules. Professionals must make such attestations either to 
the best of their knowledge or under penalty of perjury. Such 
professionals may also include, in the attestation, information about 
the individual's functional abilities to use

[[Page 65955]]

telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications 
services in various settings. The NDBEDP pilot program rules also 
specify that the professional's attestation must include the attester's 
name, title, and contact information, including address, phone number, 
and email address. Alternatively, certified programs may verify an 
applicant's disability by accepting documentation already in the 
applicant's possession, such as individualized education program 
documents and Social Security determination letters.
    39. The Commission will continue to require NDBEDP applicants to 
provide verification of their disability either by obtaining an 
attestation from a professional with direct knowledge of their deaf-
blindness or by submitting supporting documentation already in the 
applicant's possession. The Commission further adopts its proposal for 
each professional to provide the basis for his or her attestation that 
an individual is deaf-blind, noting that the provision of this 
information will assist programs in substantiating the deaf-blind 
individual's equipment needs. So that the program may contact the 
professional if necessary, the Commission also adopts its proposal to 
require the attestation to include the professional's full name, title, 
and contact information, including business name, address, phone 
number, and email address.
    40. The Commission will not require each certified program to re-
verify the disability eligibility of an individual who previously has 
been served by a program each time the recipient applies for new 
equipment, unless the program has reason to believe that the equipment 
recipient no longer has a disability sufficient to allow continued 
eligibility for the NDBEDP. The Commission noted that it received no 
comments from medical experts or other parties suggesting that 
subsequent disability verifications are necessary to prove a person's 
ongoing disability after an initial determination of such eligibility. 
Rather, commenters generally agree that if an individual's disability 
changes over time, it is far more likely to worsen rather than improve. 
At the same time, commenters confirm the Commission's conclusion in the 
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order that individuals who are deaf-blind are 
likely to face significant logistical challenges, including the very 
types of communication barriers the NDBEDP is itself designed to 
eliminate, in their endeavors to arrange for appointments and travel to 
acquire verification of their disability. The Commission concludes that 
the benefits of imposing such a requirement on all deaf-blind 
individuals do not outweigh the resulting burdens that would be imposed 
on such persons.
    41. The Commission's rejection of a blanket re-verification rule 
for all returning applicants, however, does not preclude a program from 
assessing, on an individual basis, the extent to which a returning 
applicant continues to qualify for equipment and related services, 
where the program has reason to believe that the visual acuity and 
hearing of such individual has improved sufficiently to disqualify such 
individual. In such instances, a certified program shall require such 
individual to provide an updated verification of the individual's 
disability status to determine the applicant's continued eligibility 
before providing the applicant with additional equipment or services. 
In addition, given record evidence that vision and hearing are likely 
to worsen over time, the Commission will permit any certified program 
to require updated information about an individual's disabilities when 
it deems this to be necessary to assess whether to provide the 
individual with different equipment or related services. This will 
permit certified programs to effectively respond to changes in the type 
and severity of an individual's disability.
    42. Income Eligibility. To participate in the NDBEDP, the deaf-
blind applicant must be ``low income.'' 47 U.S.C. 620(a). The NDBEDP 
pilot program rules define low income as income that does not exceed 
400% of the FPG. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission 
selected this threshold after taking into consideration both the 
unusually high medical and related costs commonly associated with being 
deaf-blind (e.g., personal assistants, medical care, and independent 
living costs), and the very high costs of some SCPE used by this 
population.
    43. The Commission concludes that the record supports the continued 
application of 400% of the FPG as the income ceiling for the permanent 
NDBEDP, and accordingly it retains this threshold. As it did during the 
pilot program, the Commission will continue to use the contiguous-
states-and-DC guidelines for the U.S. Territories that participate in 
the NDBEDP.
    44. The Commission received little comment in response to its 
inquiries about the relevance of the income threshold for determining 
eligibility under the Commission's Lifeline program and the median U.S. 
household income to the NDBEDP income eligibility determination. The 
Commission's own analysis, however, leads it to conclude that the 
considerations at issue for the NDBEDP are very different from those 
attendant to the income measures for programs such as Lifeline. Unlike 
individuals in the general population who can purchase off-the-shelf 
telephone devices at a range of prices, people who are deaf-blind often 
must purchase equipment that is very expensive, sometimes costing 
thousands of dollars. For example, during the pilot program, the 
average cost of NDBEDP equipment distributed to consumers was $2,632 in 
2013-2014 and $2,285 in 2014-2015, and some consumers received 
equipment costing over $12,000 in 2013-2014 and over $10,000 in 2014-
2015. In addition, as explained in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the 
unusually high out-of-pocket medical and related costs incurred by 
people in the deaf-blind community puts them at risk of having to 
``choose between paying for medical treatment and obtaining the 
equipment that they need to be able to communicate.'' Thus, an analogy 
to the Lifeline program that largely serves the general population is 
inapposite to the NDBEDP. For the same reason, the Commission concludes 
that it is not appropriate to compare the median U.S. household income 
with the threshold that it is setting for NDBEDP eligibility, given 
that the generally high expenses incurred by deaf-blind individuals 
keeps their disposable incomes from being similarly situated to the 
disposable incomes available to average U.S. households. The Commission 
reiterates its conclusion, made in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, that 
``[i]n 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'--[the Commission] must adopt an income threshold that 
takes into account these unusually high medical and disability-related 
expenses, which significantly lower one's disposable income.'' Further, 
the Commission notes that the hurdles of finding employment are far 
greater for a person who is deaf-blind than they are for members of the 
general public. It would defeat the very purposes of the NDBEDP to 
promote the independence and productivity of this population were the 
Commission to force these individuals to lose their program support as 
soon as they began using the very communications devices they received 
under this program to acquire earnings.

[[Page 65956]]

    45. Although the Commission recognizes the interest that some 
commenters have in raising the income threshold even further, absent 
authority from Congress, the Commission cannot remove the low-income 
limitation from the eligibility requirements to allow deaf-blind 
individuals who do not meet the income requirement to receive the 
program's benefits. Nevertheless, based on its experience with the 
pilot program, the record in this proceeding, and the general interest 
by many state programs to reach as many people with disabilities as 
possible, the Commission concludes that 400% of the FPG strikes the 
appropriate balance. Accordingly, given the goal of the CVAA ``to 
ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to utilize fully . . 
. essential advanced technologies,'' S. Rep. No. 111-386 at 3 (2010), 
and given the unusually high medical and disability-related expenses 
generally incurred by the covered population, it concludes that the 
400% threshold originally adopted by the Commission for the pilot 
program is appropriate for the permanent NDBEDP.
    46. Calculation of Income. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on how income should be calculated to determine 
eligibility for NDBEDP applicants and specifically asked whether this 
should be based on the individual's ``taxable income,'' i.e., the 
amount used to compute the taxes owed by the applicant. After a careful 
review of this issue, the Commission declines to base eligibility on an 
applicant's taxable income in the permanent NDBEDP. The Commission 
recognizes that there is support from several commenters for this 
approach because it may allow additional individuals into this program. 
However, the Commission believes that the threshold of 400% of the FPG 
will sufficiently take into account the high costs of medical, 
disability and equipment-related expenses incurred by people with 
disabilities, effectively addressing Congress's dual interests in 
limiting this program to individuals who have lower incomes, and 
serving as many eligible individuals as possible. Additionally, the 
Commission is concerned that, as a program structured with 
decentralized administrative responsibilities, use of taxable income to 
determine eligibility would place a significant administrative burden 
on individual local certified programs with limited financial resources 
and small workforces, detracting from the program's mission. By 
focusing on total income, the income verification process will be 
simplified, consistent, and less prone to errors. Furthermore, the 
Commission's research failed to uncover any precedent for using taxable 
income to determine eligibility to participate in a federal subsidy 
program.
    47. The Commission, therefore, affirms the guidance initially 
issued by the Bureau during the pilot program, which mirrors that used 
by its Lifeline program, and will continue its practice of basing 
calculations of income for determining program eligibility on all 
income received by all members of a household:

    This includes salary before deductions for taxes, public 
assistance benefits, social security payments, pensions, 
unemployment compensation, veteran's benefits, inheritances, 
alimony, child support payments, worker's compensation benefits, 
gifts, lottery winnings, and the like. The only exceptions are 
student financial aid, military housing and cost-of-living 
allowances, irregular income from occasional small jobs such as 
baby-sitting or lawn mowing and the like.

NDBEDP FAQ 23; 47 CFR 54.400(f).

    48. During the NDBEDP pilot program, in guidance provided to the 
certified programs, the Bureau explained that an applicant's ``income'' 
includes all income received by all members of an applicant's 
``household.'' NDBEDP FAQ 23. This Bureau guidance went on to define a 
``household'' as:

. . . any individual or group of individuals who are living together 
at the same address as one economic unit. A household may include 
related and unrelated persons. An ``economic unit'' consists of all 
adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and 
expenses of a household. An adult is any person eighteen years or 
older. If an adult has no or minimal income, and lives with someone 
who provides financial support to him/her, both people shall be 
considered part of the same household. Children under the age of 
eighteen living with their parents or guardians are considered to be 
part of the same household as their parents or guardians.

NDBEDP FAQ 24; 47 CFR 54.400(h).

    49. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission proposed 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 pursuant to the Bureau's 
guidance. Similarly, the Commission proposed to make clear that where 
an adult applicant lives in a multi-person home but does not have 
access to the financial resources of other individuals living in that 
household, the income of such individuals should not be included in the 
applicant's income determination. Commenters generally support this 
clarification, to ensure that otherwise qualified applicants are not 
harmed due to household arrangements. The Commission agrees that, where 
an applicant lives in a multi-person home but does not have access to 
the financial resources of others, such applicant is maintaining a 
financially distinct identity despite the shared living space. In this 
instance, the Commission concludes that combining the applicant's 
income and expenses with those of others in the household for purposes 
of determining the applicant's income eligibility could unfairly 
disqualify such applicant from the NDBEDP. Accordingly, the Commission 
clarifies that an applicant's income will not include the income of 
other adults in a household if such adults do not contribute to and 
share in the income and expenses of the household. By contrast, when an 
applicant benefits from the income contributions of other household 
members, the Commission continues to believe that it is appropriate and 
necessary to consider such contributions in determining NDBEDP 
eligibility. For example, when an applicant is financially dependent 
upon others in a household, or has income that is intertwined with 
those of another household member (as with a spouse), the applicant 
benefits from such financial resources, and therefore the individuals 
contributing to these shared funds will be considered part of the 
economic unit for purposes of his or her income determination.
    50. Verification of Income Eligibility. The NDBEDP pilot program 
rules provide that applicants who provide evidence of enrollment in 
federal or state subsidy programs that require income thresholds lower 
than 400% of the FPG will automatically be deemed to be ``low income'' 
under the NDBEDP without submitting further verification. Based on 
support in the record and its experience with the pilot program, the 
Commission concludes that this approach is reasonable and reliable, 
simplifies the income verification process for applicants and certified 
programs, imposes little burden and expense, and is consistent with the 
approach adopted for the Commission's Lifeline program. Thus, the 
Commission will retain this provision under the permanent NDBEDP. In 
addition, consistent with the Commission's rules governing the Lifeline 
program, in order to prove participation in one of these programs, an 
NDBEDP applicant may submit a current or prior year statement of 
benefits, a notice or letter of participation, program participation 
documents, or official documents

[[Page 65957]]

demonstrating that the applicant receives benefits from a qualifying 
assistance program.
    51. To promote consistency across the NDBEDP and Lifeline programs 
and increase efficiency, the Commission will also modify the list of 
examples of federal assistance programs that applicants may use to 
automatically establish eligibility to participate in the NDBEDP to 
mirror a recently revised list of federal assistance programs used to 
establish eligibility for the Lifeline program. Under these revised 
requirements, applicants who receive benefits from certain federal 
assistance programs--Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, 
or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit--are deemed income eligible 
for enrollment in the Lifeline program. The NDBEDP Administrator also 
may identify state or other federal programs with income eligibility 
thresholds that do not exceed 400% of the FPG for determining income 
eligibility for participation in the NDBEDP.
    52. For applicants who are not enrolled in a qualifying program, 
the Commission will continue to require certified programs to verify 
low-income eligibility by using appropriate and reasonable means. 
Consistent with the Commission's Lifeline program rules, the following 
documentation may be used 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 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). Also consistent with the Lifeline program 
rules, 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. The Commission directs the Bureau to assess whether any 
new forms developed for applicants to establish identity and 
eligibility for the Lifeline program would be appropriate for 
applicants to submit data to establish income eligibility to 
participate in the NDBEDP, and to update the guidance the Bureau 
provides to certified programs with respect to income eligibility 
documentation, as needed.
    53. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
requiring a third party to verify an applicant's income. The Commission 
declines to adopt this requirement at this time. The Commission is 
persuaded by commenters that the burdens that such verification would 
impose upon certified programs, as well as the likely delay in 
processing applications, are not outweighed by the benefits of imposing 
this requirement. Because certified programs under the NDBEDP have been 
allocated a limited amount of funds, the Commission believes that their 
incentives largely are to extend their dollars to as many qualifying 
deaf-blind state residents as possible, rather than to approve 
ineligible applicants. Nor is there any evidence in the record to 
suggest that NDBEDP certified programs have not been effective in 
verifying their applicants' incomes, which might justify using a third-
party verifier. As such, the Commission finds that requiring certified 
programs to individually verify income eligibility is an appropriate 
method to accomplish income verification for this program at this time. 
However, the Commission will continue to monitor certified program 
operations to evaluate the need for a third party to verify applicant 
eligibility in the future.
    54. Finally, in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission proposed 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. 
Commenters generally recognize that income does change over time and 
agree that re-verification of income eligibility after one year is 
reasonable. The Commission concurs and adopts this requirement for the 
permanent NDBEDP.
    55. Access to Covered Services. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 
the Commission recognized that giving communications equipment to 
individuals who are deaf-blind who do not have the service needed to 
use the equipment would not be an effective use of the program's 
limited resources. For this reason, the pilot program rules permit 
certified programs to require that NDBEDP equipment recipients 
demonstrate that they have access to the telecommunications, Internet 
access, or advanced communications services that the equipment is 
designed to use and make accessible. Access to such services may be in 
the form of free wireless, WiFi, or other services made available by 
public or private entities, such as libraries, coffee shops, local 
governments, or by the recipient's family, friends, neighbors, or other 
personal contacts. The Commission continues to believe that it makes 
little sense to distribute equipment to people who do not have access 
to the covered services they need to use it and will, therefore, retain 
this rule in the permanent NDBEDP.
    56. Employment. The pilot program rules prohibit certified programs 
from imposing employment-related eligibility requirements for 
individuals to participate in the program. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program 
Order, the Commission reasoned that requiring equipment recipients to 
be employed or seeking employment would be inconsistent with the 
purpose of the program--to expand access to covered services for 
individuals who are deaf-blind--and could unnecessarily exclude 
children, students, retirees, and senior citizens. For these reasons, 
the Commission will retain this rule for the permanent NDBEDP. The 
Commission notes as well that there is no statutory basis for such a 
requirement under the CVAA.
    57. Age. The NDBEDP pilot program rules have placed no restrictions 
on the age of equipment recipients. As the Commission noted in the 
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, advocates believe that the program should 
serve all eligible consumers, regardless of age, and that even very 
young children who are deaf-blind should have the same opportunity to 
learn how to use information and communication technology as their 
peers who are not deaf-blind. The Commission continues to believe that 
the permanent NDBEDP should continue to serve as a program that 
supplements, rather than supplants, state or federal resources 
otherwise available to assist persons who are deaf-blind, and thus, 
where communications equipment needs are being met through such other 
available resources, those should be used as a primary source of 
assistance before turning to the NDBEDP. The Commission further agrees 
with commenters that the permanent NDBEDP should not impose mandatory 
age thresholds. Rather, the Commission directs certified programs to 
use their expertise to conduct assessments that can determine the 
extent to which applicants of very young ages--for example under four 
years of age--are developmentally capable of using the communications 
equipment being considered for such persons, as well as the 
communication services that the equipment is designed to access.

[[Page 65958]]

Equipment and Related Services

    58. Equipment. As authorized by section 719 of the Act, the 
Commission makes TRS Fund monies available to support programs that are 
approved by the Commission for the distribution of SCPE designed to 
make telecommunications service, Internet access service, and advanced 
communications services, including interexchange services and advanced 
telecommunications and information services, collectively referred to 
as ``covered services,'' accessible to low-income people who are deaf-
blind. See 47 U.S.C. 620(a). In the NDBEDP pilot program rules, the 
Commission determined that under this provision, reimbursement can be 
provided to state programs for hardware, software, and applications, 
whether separate or in combination, mainstream or specialized, needed 
by an individual who is deaf-blind to achieve access to covered 
services. Equipment-related expenses, including those attributable to 
maintenance, repairs, warranties, and maintaining an inventory of 
loaner equipment, as well as the costs of refurbishing and upgrading 
previously distributed equipment, also have been reimbursable. Programs 
have not been permitted to 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 have been allowed 
to lend or transfer ownership of the distributed equipment to eligible 
recipients, and, for consumers re-locating out of the state, programs 
have been required to transfer the account and any control of the 
consumer's distributed equipment to new state's certified program. For 
the reasons discussed below, the Commission adopts its tentative 
conclusion to retain these pilot program rules because it believes that 
the approach taken for the NDBEDP pilot program has been reasonable and 
flexible, has benefitted consumers, is authorized by section 719 of the 
Act, and has furthered the purpose of the CVAA.
    59. Equipment--Allowable Equipment. The Commission retains the 
pilot program's definition of ``equipment'' for purposes of determining 
reimbursable expenses under the permanent NDBEDP. In so doing, the 
Commission affirms its previous determination that mainstream or ``off-
the-shelf'' equipment may be provided, along with specialized or 
assistive equipment, to eligible consumers under this program if it 
meets the needs of an eligible applicant. While section 719 of the Act 
refers specifically to ``specialized customer premises equipment,'' the 
Commission adopts a broad interpretation of this term because it finds 
it to be consistent with the plain language of this section and 
Congress's underlying intent ``to help ensure that individuals with 
disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and 
equipment.'' S. Rep. at 1; H. Rep. No. 111-563 at 19 (2010) (H. Rep.). 
In addition, as the Commission noted in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 
this is consistent with principles of universal design, which seek to 
ensure that products available to the general public are designed so 
that they can be used for effective communication by as wide a range of 
individuals as possible, including people with disabilities, regardless 
of their functional differences.
    60. The Commission finds sufficient authority to adopt this 
approach. First, the Commission notes that, under the plain language of 
the statute, the Commission is permitted to give funding to 
``programs'' that distribute SCPE. Accordingly, as in the NDBEDP Pilot 
Program Order, the Commission concludes that it is reasonable to 
interpret the statute as authorizing the funding of a program's 
provision of off-the-shelf equipment and services, where reasonably 
necessary to enable deaf-blind individuals to ``utilize fully the 
essential advanced technologies that have developed since the passing 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and subsequent statutes 
addressing communications accessibility.'' S. Rep. at 3. As the 
Commission explained in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, some mainstream 
equipment, alone or packaged in combination with specialized software 
or hardware, may effectively and cost-efficiently meet the needs of 
some individuals who are deaf-blind. In addition, such equipment is 
often easier to procure and to support than CPE that is designed for 
use solely by people with disabilities. The Commission further 
concludes that the underlying purpose of section 719 of the Act is well 
served by permitting the distribution of mainstream equipment and the 
provision of software that serve the same purpose as equipment designed 
for use solely by people with disabilities, when such mainstream 
equipment may be more cost-effective and easier to procure and support. 
Especially in light of the statutory limitation of funding to $10 
million annually, an interpretation of section 719 of the Act that 
limits funding to the distribution of a narrow category of CPE and that 
does not permit reimbursement of the provision of functionally 
equivalent mainstream equipment and software with equivalent functions 
would patently frustrate the purpose of this provision by precluding 
programs from using less expensive approaches to serving their clients. 
Moreover, a very strict construction of this term might prevent the 
Commission from supporting the distribution of non-SCPE devices that 
have built-in SCPE features (e.g., magnification software). The 
Commission expects that the interpretation it adopts will instead 
expand the number of consumers who are able to be served with such 
limited allocations of funding.
    61. The Commission also notes that recent developments have brought 
many types of mainstream equipment within the Commission's current 
definitions of SCPE. Because SCPE is not defined in section 719 (or 
elsewhere in the Act), the Commission finds that it is reasonable to 
define this term consistently with the existing definitions of SCPE in 
the Commission's rules. Specifically, in parts 6, 7, and 14 of the 
Commission's rules, SCPE is defined, in relevant part, as ``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 services. 
47 CFR 6.3(i), 7.3(i), 14.10(f), (u). Over the past few years, 
obligations contained in sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Act--which 
have, with certain limitations, directed the inclusion of accessibility 
features in off-the-shelf products and services used with 
telecommunications and advanced communications services, respectively--
have resulted in a greater number of mainstream communications devices 
being designed to be accessible to people with disabilities--including 
people who are deaf-blind. 47 U.S.C. 255, 617, 619. As a consequence, 
such off-the-shelf devices are now more ``commonly used'' by people who 
are deaf-blind to access services under section 719 of the Act--i.e., 
access features that are now built into these devices have, to some 
extent, eliminated the need for some deaf-blind individuals to obtain 
adjunct or ``specialized'' devices in order to use products that are 
also used by the general population. Such accessible mainstream 
devices, then, could be said to be one type of SCPE that are designed 
to make covered services accessible by

[[Page 65959]]

low-income individuals who are deaf-blind under section 719 of the Act.
    62. The Commission agrees with commenters who support maintaining 
the flexibility given to certified programs to determine the types of 
qualifying equipment most appropriate for their eligible residents. In 
the permanent NDBEDP, the Commission will continue to allow programs to 
seek reimbursement for the reasonable costs of equipment best tailored 
to the needs of their residents, up to each certified program's annual 
funding allocation. While some individuals use American Sign Language 
or tactile methods of communication, others use spoken English or 
Braille, and still others use a combination of various communications 
methods. Consequently, one individual may need a large screen together 
with magnification software to read large print, another might need a 
videophone or iPad to make video calls, another might need a 
refreshable Braille display, and others might need a mix of off-the-
shelf and assistive devices. Flexibility is key to ensuring that 
individuals are accommodated effectively under this program.
    63. Commenters support, and the Commission agrees, that certified 
programs should continue to have the discretion to distribute one or 
multiple pieces of equipment, as may be necessary to achieve access to 
more than one type of covered communications service or to achieve such 
access in more than one setting. Allowing programs to determine which 
technology best fits each applicant, and when, is necessary to achieve 
Congress's purpose to bring the benefits of communications technologies 
to the intended population.
    64. For these same reasons, the Commission will continue to 
prohibit certified programs from imposing restrictions on specific 
brands, models or types of communications technology that recipients 
may receive to access covered services, and from disabling features or 
functions needed to access covered services. Further, as the Commission 
noted in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, ``[c]ertified programs must 
not be limited by state statute or otherwise to distribute equipment to 
make only some communications accessible; certified programs must be 
permitted to distribute equipment to enable deaf-blind individuals to 
access the full spectrum of communication options covered under section 
719 of the Act, as needed by those individuals.'' The Commission 
believes that this requirement has helped to ensure consumer choice and 
access to the full spectrum of NDBEDP-covered services during the pilot 
program. The Commission stresses, however, that reimbursable equipment 
must be needed by the specific applicant who is deaf-blind to achieve 
access to covered services. As explained in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
same piece of equipment may be suitable for one individual, yet 
inappropriate for another. Further, equipment that does not enable 
access to covered services cannot be funded by the NDBEDP. The 
Commission will continue to rely on the expertise of certified program 
personnel to conduct individual needs assessments to determine the 
equipment most suited to meet each consumer's unique communication 
needs. Because of the associated administrative burdens and commenters' 
desire for parity among certified programs, the Commission declines to 
permit certified programs the discretion to allow consumers to pay 
certified programs the difference in cost to upgrade equipment 
distributed by the program. To aid reimbursement certainty, the 
Commission will continue to allow certified programs to consult with 
the NDBEDP Administrator about whether a particular piece of equipment 
specified for an applicant is reimbursable before purchasing it.
    65. Equipment--Equipment-Related Expenses. Under the NDBEDP pilot 
program, the Commission also has reimbursed certified programs for the 
reasonable costs of equipment-related expenses, including the costs 
associated with equipment maintenance, repairs, warranties, equipment 
refurbishments and upgrades, and the costs of having state programs 
maintain inventories of loaner equipment. The Commission will continue 
to reimburse certified programs for the reasonable costs of these 
equipment-related expenses in the permanent NDBEDP. As the Commission 
explained in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, because some specialized 
devices (e.g., refreshable Braille displays) require frequent 
maintenance and are expensive to repair, the ``reasonable costs 
associated with equipment maintenance and repairs that are not covered 
under warranties are eligible for reimbursement'' as ``necessary 
components of an effective NDBEDP.'' Further, the Commission will 
continue to recommend that certified programs provide consumers with 
the means to return equipment to their certified program, particularly 
devices or other hardware that the consumer no longer needs or uses, 
for possible refurbishing and redistribution. To keep current with 
changes in technology and individual needs, the Commission continues to 
see merit in reimbursing certified programs for the reasonable costs of 
equipment refurbishments and upgrades, to ensure consumers have up-to-
date equipment. Finally, to help ensure accessible communications in 
the event that equipment is in need of repair, the Commission continues 
to encourage certified programs to maintain an inventory of equipment 
for loan to consumers. In addition, during the pilot program, the 
Commission has permitted certified programs to use their inventories of 
loaner equipment for other purposes, including the performance of 
individual assessments. The Commission agrees that consumers benefit 
and assessment outcomes improve when consumers are able to experience, 
interact with, and try out different technologies and equipment, and 
for this reason, the Commission includes a provision in the permanent 
NDBEDP rules to make clear that loaner equipment in inventories may be 
used for this purpose.
    66. Equipment--Cost Efficiencies and Reassessments. Commenters 
confirm that significant changes in hearing, vision, or medical status 
may trigger the need for reassessment and new equipment, and generally 
support a reassessment when such changes might affect an individual's 
need for communications devices. The Commission encourages equipment 
recipients to contact their state program when they experience a 
significant change in their hearing, vision, or other functions that 
interferes with their ability to use the equipment provided by the 
program. The Commission further directs certified programs, upon 
learning of such changes, to reassess the communications needs of 
individuals to determine whether the equipment provided continues to 
meet the recipient's needs or new or additional equipment is needed. 
The Commission also directs CGB and the NDBEDP Administrator to monitor 
equipment costs and provide such additional guidance as may be 
appropriate to the certified programs to improve the cost efficiencies 
of their equipment purchases. Given the large range of devices needed 
to meet the unique needs of the individuals served by the NDBEDP, as 
well as the wide geographic range of this program, the Commission 
agrees that certified programs need the flexibility to purchase 
equipment from a variety of vendors, including local vendors who may 
have experience working with consumers who are deaf-blind or offer 
local service and maintenance options.

[[Page 65960]]

    67. Equipment--Reimbursement Claim Documentation. Under the pilot 
program, the Commission has required the following of each certified 
program: (1) To submit documentation to support claims for 
reimbursement for equipment and related expenses, and (2) when it has 
not been obvious that the equipment distributed can be or is commonly 
used by individuals who are deaf-blind to access covered services (and, 
therefore, it is not obvious that the equipment qualifies for 
reimbursement), to submit supplementary documentation upon request by 
the NDBEDP Administrator or the TRS Fund Administrator. The 
Commission's experience during the pilot program has confirmed that 
these requirements effectively serve to safeguard the TRS Fund while 
ensuring recipients receive the equipment they need, and thus, the 
Commission will retain these for the permanent NDBEDP.
    68. Equipment--Discretion for Programs to Lend or Transfer 
Ownership of Equipment. During the NDBEDP pilot program, certified 
programs have been allowed to lend or transfer ownership of equipment 
to eligible NDBEDP recipients. The Commission concludes that the term 
``distribute'' used in section 719 of the Act is broad enough to 
encompass both lending and transfer of ownership. Further, the 
Commission has found that consumers have been served well both by 
programs that lend equipment and by those that transfer ownership of 
the equipment. The Commission continues to believe, as the Commission 
explained in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, that, while lending 
equipment might be preferable, particularly given the high cost of some 
specialized equipment, not permitting the transfer of equipment 
ownership to eligible recipients may exclude entities that are bound by 
state statutes to use this method of distribution from being certified 
to participate in the NDBEDP. For those programs that choose to lend 
equipment, the Commission also will continue to require that recipients 
be permitted to keep their devices for as long as needed.
    69. The pilot program rules also have required certified programs 
to prohibit recipients from transferring equipment received under the 
NDBEDP to another person through sale or otherwise. Given that the 
NDBEDP is a federal program with limited resources, and there is 
support for this prohibition in the record, the Commission will retain 
it for the permanent NDBEDP.
    70. Equipment--Notice to Equipment Applicants. In the NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, the Commission also sought comment on the need for a uniform 
attestation that would, among other things, notify each applicant about 
the prohibition against transferring equipment and request permission 
to allow certified programs to disclose information about the 
applicant, as needed, to minimize any interruption in service if that 
person moves to another state or a new entity takes over certification 
for that individual's state. The Commission concludes that inclusion of 
such attestation is necessary for the effective general administration, 
operation, and oversight of the program. Therefore, and to ensure 
sufficient notice about the disclosure of PII for semiannual reporting 
and other purposes of administration and operation of the NDBEDP, as 
well as the need to comply with Commission rules and the consequences 
of failing to do so, the Commission requires the following attestation 
or a substantially similar attestation on all consumer application 
forms:

    I certify that all information provided on this application, 
including information about my disability and income, is true, 
complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I authorize 
program representatives to verify the information provided.
    I permit information about me to be shared with my state's 
current and successor program managers and representatives for the 
administration of the program and for the delivery of equipment and 
services to me. I also permit information about me to be reported to 
the Federal Communications Commission for the administration, 
operation, and oversight of the program.
    If I am accepted into the program, I agree to use program 
services solely for the purposes intended. I understand that I may 
not sell, give, or lend to another person any equipment provided to 
me by the program.
    If I provide any false records or fail to comply with these or 
other requirements or conditions of the program, program officials 
may end services to me immediately. Also, if I violate these or 
other requirements or conditions of the program on purpose, program 
officials may take legal action against me.
    I certify that I have read, understand, and accept these 
conditions to participate in iCanConnect (the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program).

Certified programs that learn that an individual has unlawfully 
obtained equipment or has unlawfully sold or transferred equipment that 
was purchased with NDBEDP funds have an obligation to take appropriate 
steps to reclaim such equipment or its worth. The Commission will 
permit, though does not require, certified programs to instruct 
equipment recipients about how to care for and safeguard the equipment 
they receive. Similarly, certified programs may inform equipment 
recipients about available warranties and service agreements 
accompanying the equipment, and remind recipients that because program 
resources are limited, the program may not be able to promptly replace 
equipment that has been damaged, lost, or stolen.
    71. The Commission agrees with commenters that, given the frequency 
with which equipment is upgraded or replaced due to changes in 
technology, it would be burdensome and impractical for certified 
programs to otherwise verify on a regular basis that the equipment 
continues to reside in the recipient's possession. The Commission, 
therefore, will not impose this requirement.
    72. Equipment--Consumer Relocations. During the NDBEDP pilot 
program, when an equipment recipient has relocated to another state, 
the Commission has required the originating certified program to 
transfer the consumer's account--as well as any title to and control of 
the distributed equipment held by the originating program--to the new 
state's certified program. The receiving state's program has had a 
corresponding requirement to accept this transfer. The Commission will 
retain this provision in the permanent program because it reduces the 
need for individuals to reapply to the NDBEDP upon relocating.
    73. Equipment--Equipment Listings. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission observed that 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, 
along with examples of specific communication devices commonly used by 
people who are deaf-blind. Based on the record and the Commission's 
experience during the pilot program, the Commission concludes that 
general information about and examples of equipment provided as part of 
the iCanConnect Web site serves an important purpose and should be kept 
up to date as part of the NDBEDP national outreach efforts. Since the 
release of the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the equipment list on the iCanConnect 
Web site has been updated quarterly, which the Commission believes is 
reasonable. The Commission does not at this time require the 
iCanConnect Web site to provide other functionalities, such as the 
ability to compare and contrast different communication devices or to 
comment on the equipment listed. The Commission believes that the cost 
to develop and maintain such features (such as moderating input from 
multiple

[[Page 65961]]

sources) outweighs the potential benefits.
    74. The Commission adopts its proposal that the iCanConnect Web 
site contain 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 be 
consistent with the NDBEDP rules. The following notice, which currently 
appears on the iCanConnect Web site, will satisfy this requirement:

    This page provides an overview of the types of distance 
communication tools the program can provide to help people with 
significant combined hearing and vision loss stay connected to 
friends and family. The appearance of a specific piece of equipment 
on the iCanConnect Web site does not mean that it is appropriate for 
every program participant. iCanConnect professionals in each state 
and local community will work with individual consumers to identify 
the equipment that addresses that person's specific need, and to be 
sure that the equipment selected is consistent with the FCC's rules.

The Commission notes as well that the centralized database for the 
permanent NDBEDP, when established, could also be populated with 
information about equipment distributed by certified programs across 
the country. Along these lines, to the extent technologically feasible, 
the Commission believes that enabling certified programs to query this 
database to generate a list of equipment that has been provided through 
the NDBEDP would be helpful to their operations. Accordingly, the 
Commission directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator to consider 
including this query function in the centralized database. To the 
extent that such database contains information about distributed 
equipment, the Commission further directs inclusion of the notice 
specified above, pertaining to the need for individualized assessments 
and compliance with the Commission's rules.
    75. Assessments. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission's 
rules have permitted reimbursement for the reasonable costs of 
individualized assessments of a deaf-blind individual's communications 
needs by qualified assistive technology specialists. These costs have 
included the reasonable travel costs of state program staff and 
contractors who conduct assessments of applicants to support the 
distribution of equipment by certified programs, as well as the 
reasonable costs of support services, such as qualified interpreters. 
In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that 
individual assessments are a continued necessity, and that assessment-
related travel should continue to be reimbursed.
    76. Given the Commission's experience under the pilot program and 
support in the record, it affirms these tentative conclusions. The 
Commission concludes, as it concluded in the NDBEDP Pilot Program 
Order, that given the wide range of hearing and vision disabilities 
across the deaf-blind population, individualized assessments are 
``necessary to ensure that the equipment provided to deaf-blind 
individuals effectively meets their needs,'' will ``reduce[ ] the 
incidence of equipment being abandoned (because it is a poor match to 
the user's needs),'' and thereby will achieve efficiencies in the 
NDBEDP. The Commission agrees with commenters that section719 of the 
Act is reasonably construed to encompass the costs of assessing what 
equipment is needed in order to make covered services accessible to a 
particular individual. Such application of the statute, the Commission 
concludes, is necessary to ensure that the equipment provided enables 
deaf-blind individuals to ``utilize fully . . . essential advanced 
technologies.'' S. Rep. at 3. The Commission further concludes that 
allowing reimbursement for travel by assessors and support services to 
consumers' homes will permit assessors to consider the home environment 
and communications technology the consumer may already have, when 
assessing need.
    77. The Commission directs the NDBEDP Administrator to continue 
conducting qualitative reviews of all assessment and associated travel 
and support service costs to assess their reasonableness in light of 
the mandate of section 719 of the Act. The Commission instructs the 
NDBEDP Administrator to take the varying characteristics that are 
unique to each consumer, as well as the assessors' rates, travel 
requirements, and support services needed, and other relevant factors 
into consideration in making individual determinations as to the 
reasonableness of assessment-related costs.
    78. Installation and Training. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the 
Commission has permitted reimbursement for the reasonable costs of 
installing NDBEDP distributed equipment and conducting individualized 
consumer training on how to use such equipment. The record supports 
continuing to allow the reasonable costs of equipment installation and 
consumer training, including related travel (by trainers) and support 
services, such as qualified interpreters. The Commission concludes, 
consistent with the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, that these program 
features are essential to the efficient and effective distribution of 
equipment to people who are deaf-blind. The Commission also continues 
to recognize that 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. Finally, the Commission finds no basis, at 
this time, for revisiting the finding in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order 
that individualized consumer training through remote methods, such as 
online training modules or video conferencing, generally is not 
feasible for deaf-blind individuals.
    79. The Commission, therefore, directs the NDBEDP Administrator to 
continue to conduct qualitative reviews of each individual claim for 
reimbursement of installation, training, and associated travel and 
support service costs to assess their reasonableness. The Commission 
also instructs the NDBEDP Administrator to take relevant factors into 
consideration in making determinations as to the reasonableness of 
training-related costs, including, but not limited to, the individual's 
capabilities and experience with communications technologies, the forms 
of communication being used, the need for interpreters or other support 
services, and whether the consumer is being trained to use multiple 
devices.
    80. Center-Based Assessments and Training. Under the pilot program, 
the Commission has not reimbursed certified programs for travel costs 
that are incurred by a deaf-blind consumer who goes to an NDBEDP 
center, to receive a communications assessment or training. An ``NDBEDP 
center'' is one or more locations designated by the certified program 
that are equipped and staffed for the purpose of conducting assessments 
or training, or both. Given the record support, as well as the benefits 
and potential cost savings that can result from allowing reimbursement 
for consumer travel to NDBEDP centers for assessments or training, the 
Commission believes it is in the best interest of the permanent NDBEDP 
to allow reimbursement for such costs, when reasonable. As the 
Commission noted in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, a consumer may benefit from 
an opportunity to try out a variety of equipment at the NDBEDP center 
that cannot be transported to a consumer's home. In addition to this 
and other points made in the record, when a consumer travels to an 
NDBEDP

[[Page 65962]]

center--rather than having staff or a contractor travel from the center 
to the consumer--the program can save costs that would have been 
incurred for the travel time and related expenses of NDBEDP program 
staff or contractors.
    81. The Commission will only permit reimbursement of the costs of 
having a consumer travel to an NDBEDP center, however, when these costs 
are first pre-approved by the certified program upon a determination 
that the reasonable costs of this travel would be more efficient and 
effective than having the assessor travel to the consumer. Factors that 
should go into this determination should include, among other things, 
the availability of local training and assessment resources, the need 
to try out equipment that would be too difficult to transport to the 
consumer's home, and the cost savings for the program. In order to 
permit such travel costs, state programs must have guidelines in place 
that are consistent with state or federal travel guidance setting 
reasonable limits on travel costs. Each certified program will have the 
further option to request pre-approval by the NDBEDP Administrator 
before agreeing to reimburse such costs.
    82. While the Commission expects that most travel by consumers will 
be in-state travel, in some cases it may be more cost effective for a 
consumer to cross state lines to reach the closest center. As such, in 
certain circumstances, it may be more cost efficient to allow 
reimbursement to certified programs for the reasonable costs of 
consumer travel to another state, particularly to an adjoining state, 
for assessment and training. Each certified program will be required to 
obtain pre-approval from the NDBEDP Administrator for any out-of-state 
consumer travel costs. The NDBEDP Administrator should determine the 
extent to which such out-of-state travel would be more cost efficient 
and effective than in-state travel. All claims for reimbursement of 
costs related to consumer travel to a location outside of the 
consumer's state, as well as costs related to services provided to the 
consumer (e.g., assessments or training) at a location outside of the 
consumer's state, should be submitted by the consumer's home state 
program.
    83. In addition, consumers should not be forced to travel to an 
NDBEDP center, even if it is more cost efficient to have them travel 
than it is for an assessor or trainer to come to their home. Instead, 
consumers should have the choice of traveling or not, as long as the 
costs of such travel are reasonable, recognizing that there may be 
benefits, limitations, or logistical consequences for either option, 
such as a longer wait time to arrange for an assessment or training.
    84. The NDBEDP Administrator will review each claim for travel 
reimbursement, in addition to conducting overall monitoring of travel 
expenses generally. The Commission believes that having the NDBEDP 
Administrator monitor these costs will ensure that the costs remain 
reasonable. The Commission further directs CGB and the NDBEDP 
Administrator to determine, during the fifth year of the permanent 
program, whether and to what extent certified programs should continue 
being reimbursed for the costs associated with consumer travel to an 
NDBEDP center beyond the fifth year of the permanent program. This 
assessment should consider all relevant factors, including a comparison 
of the costs for program personnel travel to the consumer's home versus 
the costs of consumer travel to an NDBEDP center, cost efficiencies, 
benefits, or advantages that inure to the program or to the consumer as 
a result of such compensation, and the availability of program funds. 
During the NDBEDP pilot program, programs did not use all $10 million 
available for this program, eliminating the need for programs to choose 
between reimbursing the costs of equipment and other services and 
features of the program, such as the costs of travel. If, in the 
future, a greater number of individuals participate in this program, 
funding may be tighter, as more consumers seek to obtain equipment. The 
five year review will take into consideration such competing demands on 
the available funding. If competing demands for program funds raise 
concerns about the feasibility of reimbursing these travel costs prior 
to the five year review, the Bureau may take steps to prioritize the 
use of such funding to reduce or eliminate such reimbursement, as 
necessary. In the absence of action by the Commission or the Bureau 
prior to or during the fifth year of the permanent NDBEDP to modify or 
terminate reimbursement for travel expenses, the Commission will 
continue to reimburse certified programs for the reasonable costs 
associated with program personnel travel and consumer travel to an 
NDBEDP center.
    85. Training Trainers. For the reasons discussed below, the 
Commission will allow certified programs to use up to 2.5% of their 
NDBEDP funding allocations, or approximately $250,000 annually for all 
certified programs, for the costs of train-the-trainer activities for 
the first five years of the permanent NDBEDP. Funding for this purpose 
will be reallocated from funding previously used for national NDBEDP 
outreach. The Commission directs the Bureau to determine whether and to 
what extent such funding should be continued beyond this point during 
the fifth year of the permanent program.
    86. Many individuals who are deaf-blind have had little or no prior 
experience with distance communications devices or the services that 
they access, and without training, they are not likely to be able to 
use the equipment they receive to effectively access communications 
services. At the same time, organizations representing people who are 
deaf-blind have often expressed concerns about the shortage of 
qualified trainers, especially for recipients who use Braille or 
American Sign Language. While acknowledging such shortage, in the 
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission declined to set aside funds 
during the pilot program to cover the cost of teaching NDBEDP personnel 
how to train individuals who are deaf-blind on the use of their 
equipment--i.e., a ``train-the-trainer'' program--because of the 
limited funding available to the NDBEDP. Instead, the Commission 
encouraged certified programs to ``maximize the use of limited 
resources through collaboration and partnerships between and among 
certified programs on a national or regional basis, as well as 
partnerships or contracts with other individuals and entities, . . . in 
order to locate [such] qualified individuals.'' However, the Commission 
added that it might reconsider this decision not to fund train-the-
trainer programs in the future, based on information obtained through 
the pilot program.
    87. Commenters report that a continuing shortage of qualified 
trainers has limited the timeliness, amount, and quality of training 
that equipment recipients have received during the NDBEDP pilot 
program. Further, the Commission's original expectation that the 
shortage of qualified trainers could be resolved through collaboration 
and partnerships among certified programs and other entities has not 
happened. Rather, the continuing shortage shows that other funding 
sources have not adequately addressed the problem during the pilot 
program. Thus, the Commission agrees with the majority of commenters 
that it is both appropriate and necessary at this time to allocate 
NDBEDP funding for train-the-trainer activities.
    88. Training Trainers--Commission Authority. A primary purpose of 
the CVAA is ``to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are 
able to fully utilize communications services and equipment.'' S. Rep. 
at 1; H. Rep.

[[Page 65963]]

at 19. The record shows an insufficient supply of trainers to meet the 
existing demand. As the Commission recognized in the NDBEDP Pilot 
Program Order, without training on the use of the equipment they 
receive, recipients will not be able to effectively benefit from the 
NDBEDP, and the equipment will be underutilized or abandoned. The 
Commission thus concludes that the mandate in section 719 of the Act--
for the Commission to support programs approved for the distribution of 
SCPE designed to make covered services accessible to low-income 
individuals who are deaf-blind--provides the authority for the 
Commission to support train-the-trainer activities. 47 U.S.C. 620. The 
Commission believes that this approach is consistent with the 
Commission's prior decision to allow funding support during the NDBEDP 
pilot program for assessments, equipment installation, and consumer 
training. Although these services are not part of the act of 
distributing equipment per se, in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 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.'' Thus, the Commission concludes that 
funding for train-the-trainer activities is likewise a reasonable use 
of the Commission's authority under the CVAA and necessary to achieve 
its effective implementation.
    89. Training Trainers--Amount of Funding. The Commission concludes 
that an initial allocation of $250,000, to be reallocated from funding 
previously used for national NDBEDP outreach, strikes an effective 
balance between supporting training activities and preserving funding 
for the actual distribution of equipment. Accordingly, the Commission 
directs such allocation for the first five years of the permanent 
program, with a review of this amount to take place during the fifth 
year.
    90. Training Trainers--Training Program Structure. Given the 
benefits of allowing individual programs to determine the types of 
train-the-trainer activities they require, the Commission will permit 
each certified program to use up to 2.5% of their NDBEDP funding 
allocations, or approximately $250,000 annually for all certified 
programs, for train-the-trainer activities or programs as each deems 
appropriate. State programs may use these funds for individually state-
run, regional or national programs that may be set up for such training 
purposes.
    91. The Commission agrees with commenters who oppose treating these 
expenditures as an administrative cost, contending that training 
trainers is an activity that benefits state residents who are deaf-
blind. Further, the Commission is concerned that increasing the cap on 
administrative costs from 15% to 17.5% might create an incentive for 
certified programs to forgo train-the-trainer activities in order to 
apply some of the unused train-the-trainer funds toward other 
administrative expenses. Such action might, in turn, exacerbate the 
persistent shortage of qualified trainers that the funding allocation 
for train-the-trainer activities is intended to abate. Separate 
accounting of train-the-trainer activities also will facilitate program 
oversight and evaluation of the use of this funding. To the extent that 
a state does not use up its full 2.5% allocation for train-the-trainer 
activities, it may re-allocate the unused funding to support the 
distribution of equipment and provision of related services to eligible 
consumers. For these reasons, the Commission requires certified 
programs to submit requests for reimbursement for the reasonable costs 
of train-the-trainer activities, which may be reimbursed up to 2.5% of 
a program's annual allocation.
    92. Training Trainers--Training Formats. The Commission agrees with 
commenters that the needs of certified programs and the population they 
serve, along with differences in the skills and learning styles of 
their individual trainers, cannot be appropriately addressed without 
flexibility to choose from among various available training options. 
Therefore, the Commission will permit reimbursement for a range of 
train-the-trainer activities, including one-on-one on-the-job training, 
as well as individual, group, distance or online training activities 
and programs conducted by HKNC, certified programs, and other entities. 
The Commission further agrees that it is not appropriate for the NDBEDP 
to compensate equipment manufacturers or vendors for training trainers 
on how to use the equipment they manufacture or sell because these 
costs should be subsumed within the manufacturer's or vendor's costs of 
doing business. At the same time, the Commission understands that 
equipment manufacturers and vendors may be particularly well-suited to 
provide such training and having these entities provide training may be 
a cost-effective option, or in fact the only option available, given 
the persistent shortage of qualified trainers. For these reasons, 
though the Commission declines to provide reimbursement for a company's 
training fees, it will reimburse certified programs for their 
reasonable costs to obtain such training (e.g., to cover the cost of 
their trainee's time and travel).
    93. In response to comments filed in this proceeding, the 
Commission also encourages certified programs and other entities to 
train individuals who are deaf-blind to become qualified trainers, so 
that NDBEDP equipment recipients in turn can be trained by those with 
experience and knowledge of the equipment.
    94. Training Trainers--Fifth Year Assessment. The Commission will 
provide NDBEDP support for train-the-trainer efforts during the first 
five years of the permanent program, and directs the Bureau to monitor 
such efforts during this period, for the purpose of making a 
recommendation to the Commission during the fifth year of the NDBEDP on 
whether and to what extent funding should be continued beyond that 
time. In light of concerns about the need for ongoing training to keep 
pace with changes in technology, however, funding for train-the-trainer 
activities will be continued at this level in the absence of action by 
the Commission or the Bureau to modify or terminate such support beyond 
the fifth year of the permanent NDBEDP. In making its determination, 
the Bureau should consider whether train-the-trainer activities and 
programs, as implemented, have advanced the purpose of the statute ``to 
help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully 
utilize communications services and equipment.'' S. Rep. at 1; H. Rep. 
at 19. To facilitate such assessment, the Commission directs the Bureau 
and the NDBEDP Administrator to consult with certified programs and 
other stakeholders, via public notice or by other means, to ascertain 
the extent to which train-the-trainer funding has mitigated the 
shortage of qualified trainers and improved the timeliness, amount, and 
quality of instruction provided to equipment recipients. The Commission 
believes that certified programs and other stakeholders, through these 
and other measures, will be in the best position, given their first-
hand knowledge, to inform the Commission's assessment and determination 
about whether and to what extent funding for train-the-trainer 
activities and programs should be continued.
    95. National Outreach. Each year since the commencement of the 
pilot program, the Commission has set aside $500,000 of the $10 million 
annual NDBEDP allocation to conduct national outreach. As the 
Commission explained in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, significant 
initial funding for outreach was necessary to launch the pilot

[[Page 65964]]

program, because eligible individuals needed to become informed about 
the availability of the program before distribution of equipment could 
take place. The Commission determined that use of this funding to 
support certified programs through national outreach efforts was an 
essential step to achieving the overall purpose of section 719 of the 
Act, i.e., to enable low-income people who are deaf-blind to get the 
equipment they need to have access to covered services.
    96. In 2012, the Bureau selected the Perkins School for the Blind 
(Perkins), which has partnered with HKNC, FableVision, Inc., and 
others, to be the national outreach coordinator for the NDBEDP pilot 
program. Their efforts resulted in, among other things, an NDBEDP Web 
site (www.iCanConnect.org), an active social media presence, public 
service announcements (PSAs), and advertisements on billboards and in 
magazines. Additional activities included establishing an 800 number 
and call center for program inquiries and referrals, producing 
marketing materials for use by state programs, conducting monthly 
conference calls among certified programs, the FCC, and the TRS Fund 
Administrator, and supporting state program efforts to collect and 
share program success stories.
    97. The Commission concludes that it continues to have sufficient 
authority to support outreach activities because informing individuals 
who are deaf-blind about the availability of equipment is an essential 
step needed to support program efforts to distribute such equipment. 
Based on the comments submitted, the Commission finds that some 
national outreach, overseen by the NDBEDP Administrator, continues to 
be needed to raise awareness about the program, educate potential 
applicants on the ways that broadband and other communication services 
can enhance their lives, and instruct them on how to apply.
    98. Given support in the record and the significant progress made 
in raising awareness of the NDBEDP during the pilot program, the 
Commission concludes that an annual allocation of $250,000 is likely to 
be sufficient at this time to ensure continuation of the critical 
components of the national outreach efforts. During the fifth year of 
the permanent program, the Commission directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP 
Administrator to determine the extent to which the allocation for 
national outreach efforts should be continued or adjusted, to ensure 
that funding allocated for the NDBEDP is used efficiently. To avoid a 
lapse in the provision of critical national outreach components--Web 
site, call center, digital marketing materials, social media, and 
support to state programs--funding for national outreach will continue 
to be available at this level beyond the fifth year of the permanent 
NDBEDP in the absence of action by the Commission or the Bureau to 
modify or terminate such support.
    99. To avoid any disruption and loss of expertise developed by the 
current national outreach arm of the NDBEDP, the Commission authorizes 
Perkins to continue conducting national outreach activities for the 
first five years of the permanent program. The Commission directs the 
Bureau, as part of its evaluation of the NDBEDP national outreach 
efforts during the fifth year of the permanent program, to determine 
whether to extend Perkins's national outreach services for another 
five-year period or to invite new entities, via a public notice, to 
submit applications to conduct these efforts.
    100. National Outreach--Targeted Marketing Efforts. Based on the 
comments received, the Commission concludes that national outreach 
efforts will be most effective at this point if they are targeted--at 
least in part--to reach eligible segments of the population that may be 
less aware of the NDBEDP, including senior citizens who may not 
identify as having a disability, individuals who are congenitally blind 
or deaf and who experience a second sensory loss later in life, ASL 
users, and individuals with limited English proficiency. To the extent 
feasible given the reduction in national outreach efforts, methods of 
reaching such groups could include dissemination of videos in ASL and 
material in languages other than English, and development of outreach 
channels in organizations that provide services to the aging 
population.
    101. National Outreach--Performance and Oversight. To evaluate the 
efficacy of national outreach efforts during the fifth year of the 
program, the Commission establishes the following three performance 
goals: (1) To build awareness of the iCanConnect program generally; (2) 
to build awareness of the iCanConnect program among certain target 
populations; and (3) to increase application to and utilization of the 
program by the intended population of low-income people who are deaf-
blind. The Commission further adopts the following performance metrics 
to assess the effectiveness of its national outreach efforts to meet 
each of these goals. First, the effectiveness of efforts to increase 
general awareness will be measured by traffic to NDBEDP call centers, 
iCanConnect Web site traffic, NDBEDP application downloads, and 
impressions on social media. The Commission encourages certified 
programs to make their consumer applications available through the 
www.iCanConnect.org state pages to enable tracking the number of 
application downloads as a performance metric. Any applications 
provided on this site must be provided in formats that are accessible 
to applicants. The Commission also encourages certified programs to 
keep their contact information on the www.iCanConnect.org state pages 
up to date to enable referrals. Second, the effectiveness of efforts to 
increase awareness by target populations will be measured by views of 
ASL videos prepared by the program, views or downloads of information 
in languages other than English, and responses to digital marketing 
efforts directed to resources related to target populations. Third, to 
determine the extent to which its national outreach efforts increase 
utilization of the NDBEDP by the intended population, the Commission 
will measure the number of individual applicants to the program, as 
well as the number of individuals who successfully receive NDBEDP 
equipment annually. While the Commission establishes this as a 
performance goal at this time, it notes that changes in the number of 
applicants and equipment recipients may be due to a wide range of 
factors, one of which may be national outreach. Further, the Commission 
notes that in order to effectively measure its success, the Commission 
will need to gather reliable data through uniform reporting into a 
centralized database. While other metrics suggested by commenters may 
be potentially useful, the Commission wishes to limit the number of 
measures employed in order to ensure that performance measurement for 
this relatively small program does not become a burdensome and unwieldy 
process. However, the Commission directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP 
Administrator to adjust or modify these performance goals and metrics 
as may be needed going forward.
    102. During the pilot program, Perkins submitted national outreach 
cost data every three months for reimbursement purposes, as well as 
periodic reports on its national outreach efforts. Because the 
Commission found this information to be both timely and informative, 
the Commission requires that, going forward, Perkins, and any 
subsequent entity that may be selected by the Commission to conduct 
national outreach, submit cost data for

[[Page 65965]]

reimbursement purposes every three months, and, at a minimum, a summary 
and analysis of national outreach activities on an annual basis, in a 
format that will enable the NDBEDP Administrator to monitor the costs 
and efficacy of its outreach activities. This data will assist the 
NDBEDP Administrator to determine appropriate budgets for national 
outreach to the extent this is warranted in the future.
    103. Local Outreach. In addition to allocating funding for national 
outreach, the Commission has required and reimbursed local outreach 
during each year of the pilot program. The Commission concludes that 
local outreach is needed along with national outreach due to the unique 
needs of each state program. In addition, local outreach can raise 
awareness of the NDBEDP in ways that are not always possible and among 
populations that are not necessarily reached using national media. The 
Commission, therefore, affirms its tentative conclusion to require 
certified programs to conduct local outreach activities reasonably 
calculated to inform their state residents about the NDBEDP, including 
the development and maintenance of their NDBEDP Web pages, and to 
reimburse programs for the reasonable costs of such outreach. In 
addition, the Commission encourages certified programs to conduct local 
outreach activities in languages other than English, such as Spanish, 
that may be prevalent in their states.
    104. The Commission continues to require local outreach materials 
to be fully accessible to people with disabilities, noting that 
certified programs, whether they are entities operated by state or 
local governments or privately operated, already are required to ensure 
accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act. See 42 U.S.C. 
12131 through 12134, 12181 through 12189. Finally, the Commission 
recommends that the national outreach coordinator provide information 
about its outreach initiatives on the iCanConnect Web site and on 
monthly calls with local programs. The Commission believes this 
coordination will avoid duplicative efforts and consumer confusion.
    105. Local Outreach--Level of Funding. The Commission is cognizant 
of the geographic and demographic challenges faced by different states 
and recognize that it may not be advisable to treat funding for local 
outreach efforts with a one-size-fits-all standard. The Commission 
further notes that the reduction in funding for national outreach 
activities by 50% may affect the level of funding needed to conduct 
outreach activities at the local level. Alternatively, the Commission 
notes that because the NDBEDP has been in operation for four years, 
some states may not need the same levels of funding for outreach as 
they did when they first initiated their programs. On balance, while 
the Commission continues to believe that local outreach should 
constitute no more than 10% of a certified program's annual funding 
allocation, it will not mandate a hard cap at this time, but will 
require programs to seek permission from the NDBEDP Administrator to 
exceed this benchmark. The Commission directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP 
Administrator, in making a determination as to the reasonableness of a 
state's outreach expenditures, to examine the unique needs, 
demographics and regional conditions of each state, taking into 
consideration the certified program's outreach goals, metrics, and 
activities. Increased outreach expenditures could be considered 
reasonable where, for example, extra outreach is shown to be needed to 
reach targeted populations who have not been served in particular 
communities or to overcome shortcomings by prior program 
administrators. Recognizing that certified programs will necessarily 
focus on different outreach activities to reflect the unique challenges 
and demographic makeup of their jurisdictions, the Commission concludes 
that each certified program should retain the flexibility to identify 
the appropriate goals and metrics for determining the effectiveness of 
its own local outreach efforts.
    106. To maximize the availability of funds for operations of direct 
benefit to equipment recipients, the Commission encourages certified 
programs to gradually reduce the amount used for outreach as demand for 
the NDBEDP accelerates. The Commission further directs the Bureau and 
the NDBEDP Administrator to assess the level of expenditures for local 
outreach during the fifth year of the permanent program and 
periodically thereafter as part of its ongoing and regular oversight 
and evaluation of the NDBEDP, to determine whether this guidance should 
be modified to increase the efficacy and efficiencies of the NDBEDP. In 
conducting this assessment, the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator may 
consider, among other things, the performance goals and measures 
established for the NDBEDP overall, the status of national outreach 
efforts, actual expenditures by certified programs for local outreach, 
the extent to which requests to exceed funding guidelines for local 
outreach by certified programs have been justified, and input provided 
by certified programs.

Funding

    107. Allocation of Funding. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the 
Commission committed to making the full amount of authorized funding, 
$10 million annually, available to the NDBEDP during each TRS Fund 
year, which begins on July 1 of each year and terminates on June 30 of 
the following year. Of this amount, the Commission set aside $500,000 
for national outreach efforts during each year of the pilot program. 
The Commission divided the remaining $9.5 million among each of the 53 
NDBEDP certified programs by allocating a minimum base amount of 
$50,000 for each state, plus an amount in proportion to each state's 
population. The Commission explained in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order 
that it elected this funding allocation strategy for certified programs 
``to ensure that, to the extent possible, every certified program in 
the NDBEDP pilot program receives a level of support that will both 
provide it with the incentive to participate in the NDBEDP and permit 
the distribution of equipment to as many eligible residents as 
possible.'' Under the pilot program rules, the Bureau was permitted to 
adjust or reallocate funding allocations to any certified program 
within a given Fund year, and to revise allocations for subsequent TRS 
Fund years, as the Bureau deemed necessary and appropriate.
    108. Initial Allocations. Based on the Commission's experience 
during the pilot program and the record in this proceeding, the 
Commission will continue to use this funding mechanism for the 
permanent NDBEDP with the following exceptions: (1) The Commission will 
set aside $250,000 annually (rather than the $500,000 allocated for the 
pilot program) for national outreach efforts during the first five 
years of the permanent program and reassess the need for continuing 
such funding beyond this period; and (2) the Commission will set aside 
an amount as may be necessary annually for the creation and maintenance 
of a centralized database to be used for reporting purposes and 
generating reimbursement claims. The remaining amount will be divided 
up through allocations of a minimum of $50,000 for each certified 
program, to which will be added individual allocations in proportion to 
each state's or territory's population. Based on the current 
populations of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands,

[[Page 65966]]

which will be served under the permanent NDBEDP, applying this funding 
mechanism would result in allocating slightly more than $50,000 for 
each added territory, for a total of slightly more than $150,000 for 
all three jurisdictions. The Commission concludes that allocating this 
amount will not have a significant impact on the funding allocations of 
the other 53 certified programs, and so finds it appropriate to apply 
the current allocation mechanism to all jurisdictions under the 
permanent program.
    109. The Commission's experience with the program has shown that 
this mechanism has allocated sufficient funds to most states annually 
to meet their residents' needs and, when such allocations have not been 
sufficient, states have had an opportunity to obtain additional funding 
through the reallocation process, discussed in more detail next. 
Further, the Commission believes that this funding allocation mechanism 
has provided each certified program with the incentive and opportunity 
to distribute communications equipment to as many eligible residents as 
possible. During the first year of the pilot program, certified 
programs, together with national outreach activities, collectively used 
approximately 68% of the $10 million allocated for the NDBEDP, 
approximately 94% was used during the second year, and approximately 
88% was used during the third year. This funding enabled equipment and 
related services to bring communications access to approximately 3,000 
low-income deaf-blind individuals.
    110. Reallocations. The Commission further concludes that the 
ability to reallocate funds between certified programs mid-Fund year 
has helped requesting programs meet their needs and has not prevented 
programs with decreased funding from satisfying the needs of their 
constituents. During the pilot program, the NDBEDP Administrator 
reviewed funding data as it became available and worked with certified 
programs, the TRS Fund Administrator and the Bureau to reallocate 
funding between certified programs to maximize the use of available 
funding, when necessary. On some occasions, such reallocations were 
made at the request of state programs that realized they would be 
unable to spend their initial annual allocation (``voluntary'' 
reallocations). On others, after providing notice, the NDBEDP 
Administrator reallocated funds from programs that were underutilizing 
their annual allocations, to satisfy requests from certified programs 
where demand for equipment and related services had exceeded their 
allocations (``involuntary'' reallocations). Involuntary reallocations 
were processed by mid-May of the second and third years of the pilot 
program.
    111. Given the success of this approach in maximizing available 
funds under the NDBEDP, the Commission will continue to authorize the 
Bureau, as necessary, to make (1) voluntary reallocations between 
certified programs at any time during the Fund year and (2) involuntary 
reallocations when individual program performance indicates that NDBEDP 
funds could be more fully utilized by other certified programs. The 
Commission believes that this approach will continue to fulfill 
Congress's goal of bringing communications access to as many low-income 
individuals who are deaf-blind as possible. See 47 U.S.C. 620(a). All 
such requests for reallocations must be submitted to the NDBEDP 
Administrator for approval by the Bureau, in consultation with the 
Office of the Managing Director (OMD) and the TRS Fund Administrator. 
Requests must be in writing, with an explanation supporting the 
request. To reduce the risk of interrupted or delayed services, the 
Commission further directs that involuntary reallocations be made by 
March or April, of each Fund year, to the extent possible.
    112. The Commission will also continue the current practice of 
notifying and coordinating with the potentially impacted certified 
programs prior to making involuntary reallocations of funding, to allow 
programs to raise concerns or objections, and to permit time for any 
needed adjustments to the affected programs. As part of this process, 
certified programs will continue to have an opportunity to request that 
the NDBEDP Administrator consider increasing or decreasing the proposed 
change in allocation. The Commission believes that the formula used by 
the NDBEDP Administrator for involuntary reallocations during the pilot 
program--which reduced by 50% the remaining allocations of certified 
programs that spent less than 25% of their annual allocations during 
the first half of the year, and reduced by 25% the remaining 
allocations of programs that spent more than 25% but less than 50% of 
their annual allocations during the first half of the year--has worked 
well to meet the needs of the certified programs, and for this reason, 
retains this formula for the permanent program. At the same time, as 
the Commission previously noted, it expects that, over time, a greater 
number of certified programs will exhaust their initial annual funding 
allocation, which will consequently reduce funds available for 
voluntary and involuntary reallocations. The Commission will allow the 
NDBEDP Administrator to adjust the formula, if necessary, to account 
for a reduction in funds that may be available for reallocations.
    113. Under the permanent program, allowable spending for 
administrative costs is capped at 15% of each state's initial funding 
allocation, and the Commission has determined that reasonable levels of 
spending for train-the-trainer activities and local outreach efforts 
are 2.5% and 10%, respectively. To provide certainty, if a certified 
program's funding allocation is adjusted downwards during a Fund year, 
and the program already incurred these expenses prior to such 
reallocations, the Commission will not seek to recover reimbursed 
expenses that exceed allowable percentages with respect to the revised 
funding allocation.
    114. Prioritizing Use of Funding. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission asked whether it should take measures to prioritize the use 
of funding in the event that demand exceeds the $10 million funding 
limitation and, if so, how. Although the record to date indicates 
annual NDBEDP expenditures as high as 94% of the $10 million annual 
allocation, there is no evidence of major inefficiencies or inequities 
in how available funding has been used. Therefore, and consistent with 
its conclusion that certified programs should continue to have 
flexibility in deciding how to spend their limited allocations of 
NDBEDP resources, the Commission concludes that it is premature at this 
time to adopt measures to prioritize the use of NDBEDP funding. 
Nonetheless, the Commission recognizes that the program has evolved and 
will continue to evolve over time. Accordingly, the Commission directs 
the Bureau, during the fifth year of the permanent program, to assess 
whether and to what extent the Commission should take additional steps 
to prioritize the use of funding. Because the Bureau also will be 
conducting assessments to determine the extent to which funding should 
be continued for travel, train-the-trainer activities, and outreach in 
the fifth year, the Commission sees this as a natural opportunity for 
the Bureau to also re-assess how to use program funds in light of 
overall program performance. The Commission further directs the Bureau 
to make such recommendations to the Commission as may be necessary and 
appropriate to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the program 
going

[[Page 65967]]

forward, based on this review. Finally, to the extent necessary to 
ensure that the NDBEDP is running efficiently and effectively, the 
Commission directs the Bureau to conduct an overall assessment of the 
permanent program's performance, including its use and prioritization 
of funding, in the program's tenth year, and to make any 
recommendations to the Commission as needed to improve the program's 
efficiency and effectiveness.
    115. Reimbursement Mechanism. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the 
Commission has reimbursed programs for the costs incurred for 
authorized equipment and related services, up to each certified 
program's initial or adjusted allocation. The Commission chose this 
approach--over blanket distributions to certified programs at the start 
of each Fund year--because it concluded that this would provide 
incentives for certified programs to actively locate and serve eligible 
participants, and would achieve greater accountability and protection 
against fraud, waste, and abuse.
    116. The Commission will continue to use a funding mechanism that 
reimburses certified programs for their allowable costs associated with 
equipment distribution and related services up to each certified 
program's initial or adjusted funding allocation under the permanent 
NDBEDP. The Commission believes that this will ensure that certified 
programs operate in a cost-efficient manner and will maintain the 
financial integrity of the program. The Commission understands the 
difficulties that some certified programs, particularly smaller ones, 
initially incurred when starting up their pilot programs without 
funding support. However, the Commission continues to believe that 
holding back funding until costs are incurred will incent programs to 
serve as many eligible participants as possible, and will ensure 
accountability and protection against fraud, waste, and abuse. The 
Commission also believes that the reimbursement approach will 
facilitate the reallocation of unspent funds between state programs and 
that reallocation could be difficult if another funding mechanism were 
used. To ensure that entities seeking certification have the capacity 
to operate successfully in a system that reimburses them for their 
program costs, the Commission has added administrative and financial 
management experience as one of the criteria for certification under 
the permanent program.
    117. Claim Frequency and Payment Processing. Under the NDBEDP pilot 
program, certified programs have been permitted to elect reimbursement 
monthly, quarterly, or semiannually. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to continue allowing certified entities to elect 
one of these options upon certification and at the beginning of each 
Fund year. The Commission adopts this proposal for the permanent 
program. Continuing to permit certified programs to elect their 
reimbursement period will avoid imposing unnecessary administrative 
burdens on small programs, while allowing those programs that need more 
immediate reimbursement to file more often. Such elections shall be 
made upon receiving certification and at the beginning of each Fund 
year.
    118. The Commission also adopts its proposal to continue requiring 
reimbursement claims to be submitted within 30 days after each elected 
period. This timeframe is supported by the record and will prevent 
delays when reallocations are deemed necessary. When a certified 
program submits its reimbursement claim more than 30 days after the 
claim period ends, payment of that claim may be delayed. In addition, 
if a program has a pattern of failing to submit claims in a timely 
manner, the Commission may take other action (e.g., suspension or 
revocation of the program's certification). The NDBEDP Administrator 
may grant a reasonable extension of time to submit a reimbursement 
claim upon a finding of good cause when notified by a certified program 
about the delay, the reason(s) for the delay, the expected submission 
date, and the measures the certified program will take to prevent 
recurrent delays.
    119. Finally, as explained in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission 
expects that, when a claim is submitted with sufficient documentation 
and does not require further clarification, the claim will be processed 
within 30 days, and that claims requiring additional documentation or 
clarification will be processed generally within 60 days. While noting 
such expectation, the Commission recognizes that the NDBEDP and TRS 
Fund Administrators may need flexibility to alter these time frames in 
order to address unique issues that arise. The Commission further notes 
that early payment of reimbursement claims generally is not possible 
because payments from the TRS Fund involve schedules that are guided by 
principles of fiscal management and internal controls.
    120. Documentation of Reimbursement Claims. During the NDBEDP pilot 
program, certified programs have been required to submit documentation 
to support their claims for reimbursement of the reasonable 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. During the pilot program, the TRS Fund 
Administrator has provided certified programs with instructions, 
guidance, and examples of documentation needed to support reimbursement 
claims. The Commission will continue to require certified programs to 
support their reimbursement claims with documentation, a reasonably 
detailed explanation of incurred costs, and a declaration as to the 
accuracy and truthfulness of the claims they submit. This mechanism 
holds programs accountable.
    121. In addition to documentation routinely required, the 
Commission will continue to permit the NDBEDP Administrator or the TRS 
Fund Administrator to require programs to provide supplemental 
information needed to verify particular claims. The Commission 
concludes that the process now in place, where the TRS Fund 
Administrator and the NDBEDP Administrator alert certified programs 
about the need for additional documentation or any inconsistencies or 
errors, successfully has reduced the amount of reimbursement claims 
denied to an almost negligible amount per year. This process has 
resulted in the temporary suspension or withholding of a payments 
pending resolution of disputed matters, and denied reimbursement claims 
when necessary. Under current rules, any certified program is permitted 
to appeal the denial of a reimbursement claim to the Commission. 47 CFR 
1.101 through 1.117.
    122. The Commission will allow modification to the reimbursement 
requirements somewhat to provide greater flexibility for the NDBEDP 
Administrator and the TRS Fund Administrator and to allow some easing 
of the documentation burden on state programs, where appropriate. The 
Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator, in consultation with OMD, and the 
TRS Fund Administrator, may modify the claim filing instructions issued 
by the TRS Fund Administrator, as necessary to achieve these goals. To 
further address commenters' concerns about the level of detail and 
documentation required for reimbursement and to streamline 
reimbursement claim and reporting requirements, this determination will 
take place in

[[Page 65968]]

conjunction with the development of the centralized database.
    123. Administrative Costs. Under the Commission's rules for the 
NDBEDP pilot program, certified programs have been compensated for 
administrative costs up to 15% of their total reimbursable costs for 
equipment and related services. In the NDBEDP pilot program, the 
Commission defined administrative costs to include reporting 
requirements, accounting, regular audits, oversight, and general 
administration.
    124. The Commission continues to believe that a 15% cap on 
administrative costs is reasonable for the permanent program. For 
clarity, the Commission defines these costs to be indirect and direct 
costs that do not fit into specifically designated categories, such as 
outreach or equipment and related services, but that are necessary for 
the operation of a program. For example, this could include costs for 
management and administrative support personnel, facilities, utilities, 
supplies, as well as the administration of oversight requirements, 
including reports, accounting and audits. Given support in the record, 
the Commission adopts its proposal to assess the 15% administrative 
cost cap against each certified program's annual funding allocation, 
rather than the total of its reimbursable costs for equipment and 
related services. In addition, the Commission notes that certified 
programs may petition for a waiver of the administrative cost cap rule, 
which the Bureau may consider consistent with the Commission's general 
waiver standard of a showing of good cause and a finding that 
particular facts make compliance with the rule inconsistent with the 
public interest. Grant of such a waiver would not, however, permit the 
program's total reimbursement to exceed its overall funding allocation. 
Finally, the Commission notes its expectation that the establishment of 
a centralized database will facilitate compliance with reporting and 
reimbursement claim requirements, addressing concerns about the 
sufficiency of the 15% cap to cover necessary administrative costs. As 
a number of commenters suggest, a centralized database is likely to 
produce administrative cost savings for programs that currently have to 
maintain their own, or pay for alternative databases to perform these 
functions. The Commission believes that all of these measures, taken 
together, will help to alleviate burdens that the 15% administrative 
cap may have imposed during the pilot program.

Program Oversight and Reporting

    125. Overview. Under the pilot program, the NDBEDP has been 
overseen by an NDBEDP Administrator, a Commission official designated 
by CGB. Every six months, certified programs are required to report to 
the Commission detailed information about program activities, which is 
subject to review by the NDBEDP Administrator and other Commission 
staff in order to assess the effectiveness of the program, ensure the 
integrity of the TRS Fund, and inform the Commission's policymaking.
    126. As discussed below, the Commission affirms the current 
responsibilities of the NDBEDP Administrator. In addition, the 
Commission sets overarching performance goals and initial performance 
measures for the permanent NDBEDP to provide for the efficient 
assessment of the program's progress in meeting the performance goals. 
The Commission further directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator 
to, as necessary, develop more detailed elaboration of these 
performance measures, which shall be informed by information contained 
in the reports submitted by the certified programs. In addition, the 
Commission streamlines the NDBEDP's reporting requirements so they are 
consistent with the new performance measures, as well as to improve 
program oversight and eliminate unnecessary reporting burdens.
    127. The Commission directs the establishment of a centralized 
NDBEDP reporting database, to be used for reporting purposes and for 
the generation of reimbursement claims by programs that choose to use 
it for that purpose. The Commission directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP 
Administrator to accomplish this task in coordination with OMD and its 
Chief Information Officer (CIO) and, as appropriate, with certified 
NDBEDP programs that will use or access the database. From the $10 
million available annually from the TRS Fund for the NDBEDP, the Bureau 
may allocate an amount necessary for the development and maintenance of 
the centralized database. The Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator shall 
also coordinate with the appropriate Commission offices to ensure 
compliance with applicable privacy and security requirements. For 
example, the Commission currently complies with the requirements of the 
Privacy Act with respect to the protection of PII that the Commission 
receives in connection with the NDBEDP pilot program. The Commission 
will modify the System of Records Notice for the NDBEDP and take other 
measures, as necessary and appropriate, with respect to the adoption of 
final rules for the permanent NDBEDP and the development of the 
centralized database. See Privacy Act System of Records, published at 
77 FR 2721, January 19, 2012 (FCC/CGB-3 NDBEDP System of Records 
Notice).
    128. Program Oversight Responsibilities. Designated by the Bureau, 
the NDBEDP Administrator has been responsible for, among other things, 
reviewing certification applications, allocating NDBEDP funding, 
reviewing reimbursement claims to determine consistency with the 
Commission's rules, maintaining the NDBEDP Web site, resolving 
stakeholder issues, and serving as the Commission's point of contact 
for the NDBEDP. The TRS Fund Administrator has reviewed reimbursement 
claims for accuracy and released funds from NDBEDP fund allocations for 
distributed equipment and related services, including outreach efforts.
    129. The Commission directs that the responsibilities listed above 
should continue to reside with the Bureau. In addition, the Commission 
requires the NDBEDP Administrator to coordinate with OMD regarding 
funding decisions. The Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator should 
continue to determine annual funding allocations, including 
reallocations that may need to be made during a Fund year, for each of 
the NDBEDP-certified programs. In addition, the Commission directs that 
the NDBEDP Administrator should continue the practice of conducting 
qualitative reviews to ensure that claims for reimbursement for 
equipment and services are consistent with NDBEDP rules, and the TRS 
Fund Administrator should continue to conduct quantitative reviews to 
determine that the requested dollar amounts are accurate, prior to 
making payments to certified entities. The Commission believes that 
this process will continue to fulfill its objectives to meet the needs 
of deaf-blind consumers in accordance with its policies, comply with 
Government-wide financial requirements, and achieve efficiencies in the 
NDBEDP.
    130. In addition to delegating policy oversight of the permanent 
NDBEDP to the Bureau, the Commission delegates financial oversight of 
this program to the Managing Director and directs the Managing Director 
to work in coordination with the Bureau to ensure that all financial 
aspects of the program have adequate internal controls. These duties 
reasonably fall within OMD's current delegated authority to ensure

[[Page 65969]]

that the Commission operates in accordance with federal financial 
statutes and guidance. Such financial oversight must be consistent with 
TRS Orders, rules, and Commission policies to the extent these are 
applicable to the NDBEDP, and OMD is required to consult with CGB on 
any issue that potentially could impact the availability, provision, 
and continuity of services under the program.
    131. Performance Goals and Measures. The NDBEDP 2015 NPRM noted 
that the Commission has a responsibility to ensure these funds are 
spent efficiently and effectively. The Commission therefore proposed 
the following performance goals for the NDBEDP: (1) Ensuring that the 
program effectively increases access to covered services for the target 
population; (2) ensuring that the program is administered efficiently; 
and (3) ensuring that the program is cost-effective. Because the 
Commission finds the proposed goals accurately reflect the statutory 
purpose and the goals and objectives stated in the Commission's 
strategic plan, it adopts the proposed performance goals, but revises 
these to combine the closely-related proposed goals 2 and 3. The 
revised goals are now: (1) Ensuring that the program effectively 
increases access to covered services by the target population; and (2) 
ensuring that the program is administered and implemented efficiently 
and cost-effectively. The Commission believes that these two goals are 
in harmony with each other. Specifically, to the extent that the $10 
million authorized annually for the NDBEDP is spent in a manner that is 
maximally efficient and cost-effective, such expenditure should also 
maximize access to covered services for the target population.
    132. In establishing performance measures to assess progress 
relative to these goals, the Commission is mindful of the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) advice that performance 
measures for each goal ``should be limited to the vital few.'' GAO, 
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 
and Results Act at 25 (1996). This guidance seems especially 
appropriate here, given the limited funding available to the NDBEDP 
programs and their need to focus expenditures on program operations to 
the maximum extent practicable.
    133. The Commission concludes that program performance in providing 
effective, cost-effective, and efficient service to the target 
population should be measured based on a few vital metrics that may be 
reflected in the following data: (1) Number of clients served, broken 
down by new versus existing program participants, and client 
characteristics that are relevant to the national program's performance 
and costs; (2) information about the equipment distributed, including 
costs; (3) costs and hours consumed for assessments, training, and 
follow-up visits (e.g., in connection with repair or upgrade of 
equipment); and (4) promptness of service response. Much of the data 
required to support each of these measures is either relatively easy to 
obtain or is already being collected for reporting and reimbursement 
purposes. The Commission recognizes that there could be benefits as 
well in assessing improvements in clients' access to communications 
services through metrics that analyze improvements in their ability to 
participate in life activities, such as employment and education. 
However, the Commission concludes that collecting and effectively 
analyzing such data would prove burdensome. Observed changes in 
consumer behavior at completion of training may be ephemeral or 
subjective, and afterwards, consumers who receive equipment are under 
no obligation to maintain contact with the programs in which they 
participated. Thus, while the Commission will continue to undertake 
efforts to determine effective outcomes that result from successful 
participation in the NDBEDP through outreach and other efforts, it 
concludes that imposing requirements for certified programs to gather 
this information on a regular basis would unduly burden their limited 
resources under this program.
    134. The Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator are directed to 
implement metric parameters based on the above guidance. In this way, 
measures can be ``tweaked'' as necessary to reflect insights gained 
from additional oversight experience, including insights gained in 
implementing the centralized reporting database. Given the size of the 
program, and the diversity of its recipients, program data may skew 
based on circumstances of particular regions or particular clients, and 
may require further inquiry, which prescribes against adopting 
formulaic metrics. The Commission therefore authorizes CGB to determine 
the most effective method for gathering the necessary information and 
weighing these metrics to evaluate program performance. The Commission 
expects that, at a minimum, the performance measures will serve as 
tools to develop recommendations for programs on how to increase cost-
effectiveness, and will inform the Commission's program policy 
decisions. The data collected for these performance measures should 
also enhance the Commission's ability to develop baseline information 
and benchmarks for future assessments.
    135. Reporting Requirements. Under the NDBEDP pilot program 
reporting rules, programs have been required to report information, 
every six months, about the following: Equipment recipients and the 
individuals who attest that the recipients are deaf-blind; equipment 
distributed; the cost, time, and other resources allocated to related 
services and support (outreach, assessment, installation, training, 
maintenance, repair, and refurbishment of equipment); the amount of 
time between assessments and equipment delivery; the types of state 
outreach undertaken; the nature of equipment upgrades; denied equipment 
requests and complaints received; and the number of qualified 
applicants on waiting lists to receive equipment. After considering the 
comments received, the Commission amends its rules to set forth more 
generally the categories of information that must be reported, and it 
directs the Bureau, in consultation with the NDBEDP Administrator, OMD, 
the TRS Fund Administrator, and the certified programs, as appropriate, 
to prepare reporting instructions setting forth the specific data and 
items of information that are needed to assess program performance, to 
be provided in guidance delivered to the certified programs upon 
establishment of the NDBEDP database.
    136. The Commission is mindful of the need to ensure that 
information collection requirements do not unnecessarily burden NDBEDP 
programs whose resources for program administration are quite limited. 
The Commission further believes that its original objectives for 
requiring programs to report certain information under the pilot 
program--such as detailed information about each item of equipment 
distributed--have now been met. For example, detailed reporting on the 
particular items of equipment distributed was needed to inform the 
Commission about the communication equipment needs of the deaf-blind 
community for the permanent program. While this is important 
information to collect and maintain in program records--and may also be 
necessary for the submission of reimbursement claims--the same level of 
detail about every piece of equipment distributed under the pilot 
program may not be necessary for the permanent program, and in fact 
such detailed reporting could unnecessarily burden program

[[Page 65970]]

operations without significantly aiding performance measurement or the 
prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse. On the other hand, certain items 
of information not currently reported may be needed to measure program 
performance.
    137. Where data must already be reported for claim reimbursement, 
unnecessary duplication of effort should not be required. For this 
purpose, below, the Commission directs the establishment of a 
centralized database for the submission of program data to the 
Commission. For example, effective upon activation of the centralized 
NDBEDP database, the Commission expects that a program choosing to use 
the database for claims reimbursement as well as semiannual reporting 
will not be required to enter client-specific information twice.
    138. To provide the flexibility needed to effectively assess the 
permanent program's performance, the Commission adopts rules for the 
permanent program that set forth the categories of required 
information. The Commission directs the Bureau to delineate the 
specific data points required in the instructions on data reporting and 
database use issued by the NDBEDP Administrator. For example, to 
eliminate unnecessary information collection burdens, it may not be 
necessary to report detailed information about each professional 
attesting to an individual's eligibility. While the Commission believes 
that such details should be retained in program records, it may be 
sufficient to obtain this information upon request, as needed, through 
the NDBEDP Administrator or TRS Fund Administrator. This approach will 
allow the precise information fields required in each category to be 
adjusted and streamlined over time, based on experience with program 
oversight and creation of the centralized NDBEDP database. This 
flexible approach will also enable adjustment of reporting requirements 
to harmonize with future refinement of performance metrics. For this 
purpose, the Commission requires reporting of information in each of 
the following categories, and allows the Bureau to supplement these 
categories as necessary to achieve the performance objectives of the 
program, and to prevent fraud, waste and abuse: (1) Each client's 
identity and other relevant characteristics; (2) information about the 
equipment provided, including costs; (3) the cost and time for client 
assessments, installation and training, and maintenance and repair; (4) 
information about local outreach undertaken, including costs; and (5) 
promptness of service. Certified programs will be required to report 
the specific information set forth in instructions and guidelines 
issued by the Bureau in each category listed above or other categories 
deemed necessary by the Bureau, until superseded by new reporting 
instructions and guidance.
    139. The Commission retains the requirement to report the identity 
of each individual who receives equipment because it believes this is 
necessary to enable correct analysis of program costs and efficacy. In 
addition, reporting of identity information may assist in analyzing and 
tracking changes that occur when one certified program is replaced by 
another or when a client moves to another state. In this regard, 
reporting of identity information may help prevent fraud, abuse, and 
waste (e.g., where equipment is improperly provided to the same 
individual by more than one state program). Given the small size of the 
population served, however, it may not be necessary to collect fine-
grained identity data such as date of birth. The rule the Commission 
adopts today allows CGB and the NDBEDP Administrator to exercise 
flexibility in determining the level of identification detail that 
should be collected. Given the sensitivity involved and the heightened 
need for security necessitated by the collection of PII, the Commission 
cautions CGB and the NDBEDP Administrator to limit the level of detail 
of the PII collected to that needed for effective program oversight.
    140. Frequency of Reporting. The Commission believes that regular 
reporting is necessary to ensure that certified programs maintain and 
keep current NDBEDP-related data and to provide accurate snapshots of 
that data consistently across all certified programs for oversight and 
evaluation purposes. The Commission will, therefore, retain the 
requirement for certified programs to submit reports every six months.
    141. Report Certification. 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.'' In the NDBEDP 
2015 NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend the certification as 
follows to clarify that the ``affairs'' of the certified program means 
the ``business activities conducted pursuant to the NDBEDP'':

    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.

The Commission adopts the continued requirement for this report 
certification, as amended. Likewise, the Commission makes this language 
change to its reimbursement claim certification, as proposed.
    142. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement. 
The Commission concludes that the benefits of a centralized database 
would be significant and outweigh any disadvantages. A centralized 
database will allow the efficient retrieval of data in a uniform format 
from a single system. This, in turn, will enable the Bureau, OMD, the 
NDBEDP Administrator and the TRS Fund Administrator to oversee the 
program more effectively and efficiently; analyze the performance of 
certified programs; detect patterns indicating potential fraud, waste, 
or abuse; and provide aggregate national program statistics to inform 
the Commission's future policy deliberations for the NDBEDP. In 
addition, a centralized database will improve the accuracy of reported 
data and prevent abuse of the program by, e.g., a single consumer 
applying for assistance in multiple states. State-operated databases, 
by their nature, cannot address these important national oversight 
functions. A centralized database will enable programs to avoid 
duplicative submission of identical data for both reimbursement and 
reporting purposes and may allow for more effective service to clients 
migrating to other states and clients that are transferred to newly 
certified entities. A centralized database will also permit cost 
savings for individual states that currently incur their own expenses 
to organize and submit required reports. Finally, the Commission finds 
no convincing evidence in the record showing that the cost incurred by 
programs to enter data in a centralized database would be significantly 
greater than the cost of reporting data in the manner currently 
required for the pilot program.
    143. For all of these reasons, the Commission directs the Bureau, 
in coordination with the NDBEDP Administrator, OMD and its CIO, to 
establish a centralized database for the

[[Page 65971]]

submission of program data to the Commission. The Bureau, OMD, and its 
CIO are required to ensure that the database will incorporate robust 
privacy and data security best practices in its creation and operation. 
Further, the database must comply with all applicable laws and Federal 
government guidance on privacy and security and other applicable 
technology requirements such as those mandated by the Federal 
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and the Privacy Act. As 
with other databases the Commission has created to manage its programs, 
this database must be developed in accordance with the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidance for secure, 
encrypted methods for obtaining, transmitting, storing, and disposal of 
program beneficiary information and certified program information. The 
centralized database also must have subscriber notification procedures 
in the event of a breach that are compliant with Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) and OMB guidance.
    144. Upon its completion, all certified programs will be required 
to use the centralized database to file their semiannual program 
reports. As further discussed below, programs will be allowed, but not 
required, to also use the centralized database for generating 
reimbursement requests, which is expected to eliminate the duplication 
of effort involved in filing identical data for both reimbursement and 
reporting purposes. The Commission also recognize that some certified 
programs have invested in the development of their own databases for 
tracking and reporting NDBEDP-related activities. To be clear, nothing 
in document FCC 16-101 prevents individual programs from continuing to 
use state-specific data bases for their own tracking purposes. The 
Commission only requires that the required report data be entered in a 
national database so that it can be effectively aggregated nationally 
for the essential purposes described above. Therefore, to reduce any 
costs that may be associated with entering data in both a state-
specific and a national database, the Commission directs that the 
Bureau, OMD and its CIO, and the NDBEDP Administrator consider the use 
of tools that will allow certified programs to submit data in an 
aggregate manner.
    145. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement--
Use of the Centralized Database for Reimbursement Claims. The 
Commission is persuaded that using the centralized database to generate 
reimbursement claims should be permissive. The Commission believes that 
both efficiency and accuracy can be enhanced when the data required for 
reporting and reimbursement are submitted and managed within the same 
system; however, it also recognizes that some programs reasonably 
prefer to develop reimbursement requests within an internal system that 
is used by the certified entity for other purposes. In order to 
facilitate the ability of programs to use the centralized database for 
both reimbursement and reporting, the Commission directs the Bureau and 
the NDBEDP Administrator to coordinate with OMD and its CIO, and to 
consult with certified programs so that the centralized database can 
track all of the information needed to enable reports to be generated 
and submitted electronically, and to generate reimbursement claims.
    146. The Commission concludes that the establishment of the 
centralized database does not by itself relieve certified programs of 
the requirements to retain records and document compliance with 
Commission rules. The Commission does not envision that the database 
will be a repository for all records that a certified program must 
retain or chooses to retain to demonstrate compliance with the 
Commission's requirements governing the NDBEDP. Certified programs will 
be held responsible for complying with documentation and record 
retention requirements but will be otherwise be free to maintain 
records outside the database in whatever format they deem appropriate, 
as long as such records are reproducible upon request from the Bureau, 
the NDBEDP Administrator, OMD, TRS Fund Administrator, Commission, or 
law enforcement.
    147. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement--
Inclusion and Protection of PII in the Centralized Database. The 
Commission concludes that the inclusion of certain PII is necessary 
because it will assist in analyzing and tracking changes that occur 
when one certified program is replaced by another or when a client 
moves to another state, may facilitate the transfer of client 
information when a client moves to another state, and may help detect 
possible fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) does not pose any 
major impediment to the inclusion of PII in the centralized database. 
Public Law 104-191, 100 Stat. 2548 (1996). The Commission is not a 
``covered entity'' for purposes of HIPAA and therefore is not subject 
to the same HIPAA standards applicable to such entities. Rather, the 
Commission is a ``health oversight agency,'' i.e., ``an agency or 
authority of the United States . . . that is authorized by law to 
oversee . . . government programs in which health information is 
necessary to determine eligibility or compliance.'' 45 CFR 164.501. To 
the extent that any certified program is a ``covered entity'' subject 
to HIPAA requirements, HIPAA permits the program to ``disclose 
protected health information to a health oversight agency for oversight 
activities authorized by law.'' 45 CFR 164.512(d)(1). Therefore, to the 
extent that certified programs are subject to HIPAA, disclosure of 
protected health information to the Commission for purposes of 
administering the NDBEDP does not conflict with HIPAA. Despite this 
categorization, it remains ultimately the responsibility of any HIPAA 
covered entity to ensure that it has the proper authorization to 
transmit health information to another individual or entity and is in 
full compliance with any applicable provisions of HIPAA and other 
privacy laws. A certified program that is or may be a covered entity 
for purposes of HIPAA may seek guidance about its obligations under 
HIPAA from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for 
Civil Rights.
    148. While the Commission will not exclude PII from the centralized 
database, privacy and security are key considerations that it must 
consider in the collection and maintenance of this information. 
Accordingly, the Commission directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP 
Administrator to limit the amount of PII collected to that needed for 
effective program oversight. The database administrator should be 
tasked with establishing procedures, protocols, and other safeguards to 
ensure database access is in fact restricted according to the 
Commission's guidelines to protect any PII in the centralized database. 
Additionally, the Commission requires that access to the centralized 
NDBEDP database be limited to authorized entities for purposes that 
further the effective and efficient operation and administration of the 
NDBEDP and compliance with the Commission's rules. The database 
administrator shall allow certified programs to access and use the 
database only for the reasons specified in this part of document FCC 
16-101, and to determine whether information previously entered in the 
database is correct and complete. Moreover, the Commission specifically 
prohibits a certified program from accessing PII about clients of 
another certified program, except as expressly authorized by the NDBEDP 
Administrator, pursuant to appropriate safeguards, where necessary to 
ensure

[[Page 65972]]

continuity of service to such clients or for the efficient 
administration of the program.
    149. The Commission concludes that all access to the centralized 
database should be restricted to secure means of communication and be 
subject to a strict password policy to help protect the security of the 
database. To the extent possible and appropriate, certified programs 
should be informed specifically about how data will be secured. As in 
the pilot program, the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator will 
coordinate with OMD and the CIO to ensure compliance with Government-
wide statutory and regulatory guidance as to the Privacy Act of 1974, 
FISMA, and any other applicable privacy and security requirements.
    150. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement--
Access to Other Programs' Data and Aggregate Data. The Commission 
concludes that, in general, PII and other data entered by a program 
should be available only to Commission staff and contractors that are 
charged with NDBEDP oversight responsibilities, such as the TRS Fund 
Administrator. In addition, such information can be obtained by 
personnel authorized by the specific certified program that provided 
the data (or its successor), pursuant to authorization procedures 
established by the Bureau, the NDBEDP Administrator, OMD and its CIO. 
In addition, the Bureau, the NDBEDP Administrator, and OMD and its CIO 
will determine under what circumstances and procedures certified 
programs may obtain access to aggregated, non-PII about other state 
programs or about the NDBEDP as a whole.
    151. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement--
Database Administration. Although several commenters recommend that the 
Commission invite entities via a public notice to submit applications 
to develop and maintain the database, the Commission concludes that the 
complexity of the task and the sensitivity of the issues to be 
addressed, including matters of privacy and security, demand a more 
structured process for making this selection. The Commission further 
concludes that the centralized database should be built and operated 
under the direct supervision of the Commission by an entity that has 
demonstrated skills in the development and management of an existing 
system of similar scope and complexity. The Commission directs the 
Bureau, in coordination with the Commission's Managing Director and its 
CIO, the NDBEDP Administrator, and others within the Commission, as may 
be appropriate, to determine whether the database should be built using 
internal Commission resources, or via an interagency agreement, a 
competitive procurement, or a modification of an existing agency 
contract. As part of this process, the Bureau, in consultation with the 
NDBEDP Administrator and such Commission offices, will identify the 
data elements, structure of the database, and other implementation 
details. To ensure efficient management and effective use of NDBEDP 
data in response to changes that occur over time, the Commission 
further directs the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator, in conjunction 
with the Managing Director and CIO, to initiate or direct such 
modifications as needed.
    152. Audits and Record Retention. 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, to make their NDBEDP-related records available for 
Commission-directed review or audit, and to submit documentation, upon 
request, demonstrating ongoing compliance with the Commission's rules. 
For purposes of promoting greater transparency and accountability, the 
NDBEDP pilot program rules also have required certified programs to 
retain all records associated with the distribution of equipment and 
provision of related services for two years following the termination 
of the pilot program.
    153. The Commission will retain the requirement for certified 
programs to conduct annual audits in the permanent NDBEDP because the 
Commission concludes that annual audits are needed to ensure the fiscal 
integrity of the program. As the Commission proposed in the NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, and as supported in the record, the Commission clarifies that the 
program audit standard is comparable to that required for OMB Circular 
A-133 audits and not a more rigorous audit standard, such as a forensic 
standard. Specifically, as stated in the Bureau's 2012 guidance, the 
annual independent audit must include 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. See NDBEDP FAQ 25. Compliance areas to be audited must include, 
but are not limited to, allowable costs, participant eligibility, 
equipment distribution, and reporting. The audit report must describe 
any exceptions found, such as unallowable costs, lack of participant 
eligibility documentation, and missing reports, and 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 Commission and report the auditor's observations as 
required under professional auditing standards. See NDBEDP FAQ 26.
    154. The record also supports the Commission's proposals to 
continue to require certified programs to submit to an audit arranged 
by the Commission or its delegated authorities, and for any certified 
program that fails to fully cooperate in a Commission-arranged audit to 
be subject to an automatic suspension of NDBEDP payments until it 
agrees to the requested audit. While the Commission has not undertaken 
any audits of certified programs during the pilot program, to date, it 
concludes that it is fiscally prudent to continue to require certified 
programs to submit to such audits. In addition, the Commission finds 
that this automatic suspension policy will promote transparency, 
accountability, and assure the integrity of the TRS Fund.
    155. Further, the Commission will retain the provisions in the 
pilot program rules requiring certified programs to 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 and reports, and, upon Commission request, to 
submit documentation demonstrating ongoing compliance with the 
Commission's rules. As proposed, the Commission clarifies that evidence 
that a state program may not be in compliance with those rules is not a 
prerequisite to such a documentation request. As the Commission noted 
in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, record retention is necessary to resolve 
inquiries and complaints, as well as questions about reimbursement 
claims or compliance with NDBEDP rules. The Commission affirms that 
this requirement will help to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and 
abuse and to ensure compliance with the NDBEDP rules. Certified 
programs may maintain records in whatever format they deem appropriate, 
as long as such records are reproducible upon request from the Bureau, 
the NDBEDP Administrator, OMD, the TRS Fund Administrator, Commission, 
or law enforcement.

[[Page 65973]]

    156. Finally, the Commission adopts the proposal to require record 
retention for five years, a period that is supported by a number of 
commenters and is consistent with the Commission's TRS and Lifeline 
rules. Extending the requirement to five years will help to ensure 
compliance with program requirements and enable the Commission to 
exercise appropriate oversight and administration of the permanent 
NDBEDP on an ongoing basis.
    157. Whistleblower Protections. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the 
Commission proposed to retain the whistleblower protections in the 
Commission's rules for the permanent NDBEDP. Those protections require 
certified programs to permit individuals to disclose to appropriate 
officials, known or suspected rule violations 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. Because the 
Commission continues to believe that these whistleblower protections 
help to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, the Commission will 
retain these requirements for the permanent NDBEDP.
    158. Complaints. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission proposed 
that: (1) Informal complaints containing specified information will be 
forwarded to the certified program for a response; (2) if the program's 
response does not resolve the complaint, the Commission will make its 
own disposition of the complaint and inform both parties; (3) if 
unsatisfied with the result, the complainant may file a formal 
complaint with the Commission; and (4) the Commission may also conduct 
such inquiries and proceedings as it deems necessary to enforce the 
NDBEDP requirements.
    159. The Commission hereby adopts the proposed complaint 
procedures, which are generally supported by the commenters. Under 
these procedures, informal complaints related to the NDBEDP will be 
processed by the Bureau's Disability Rights Office (DRO) complaints 
division and the NDBEDP Administrator. Informal complaints may be 
transmitted to the Commission via any reasonable means, such as by 
letter, fax, telephone, TTY, or email. When the Commission's Consumer 
Help Center is updated, informal complaints may also be transmitted 
online. This informal complaint process is intended to facilitate 
resolution of complaints between the parties whenever possible. As 
noted, if the consumer is not satisfied with the certified program's 
response and the DRO's disposition of an informal complaint, the 
consumer may file a formal complaint.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    160. 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.'' See 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.'' See 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. See 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.
    161. In 2011, pursuant to section 105 of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), which adds 
section 719 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 620, the Commission 
established the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program 
(NDBEDP) as a pilot program. Under the NDBEDP, the Commission provides 
up to $10 million annually from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay 
Service Fund (TRS Fund) to support programs approved by the Commission 
for the distribution of equipment designed to make telecommunications 
service, Internet access service, and advanced communications services 
(covered services) accessible to low-income individuals who are deaf-
blind. 47 U.S.C. 620(a), (c). 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 entities to be certified to participate 
in the pilot program--one entity for each state, plus the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands--collectively referred to as ``certified 
programs'' or ``state programs.'' Through the pilot program, thousands 
of low-income individuals who are deaf-blind have received equipment 
and training on how to use that equipment to access covered services. 
The Commission extended the pilot program to June 30, 2017. In document 
FCC 16-101, the Commission adopts rules to continue the NDBEDP as an 
ongoing, permanent program.
    162. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission concluded that the 
proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on the 
entities that might be affected by the proposed rules because the 
Commission would reimburse all of those entities for all of their 
NDBEDP expenses from the TRS Fund, up to their annual funding 
allocations. The Commission added that the changes it was proposing 
were of an administrative nature, intended to reduce the administrative 
burden on those entities, and would not have a significant economic 
impact on small entities. If there were to be an economic impact on 
small entities as a result of the proposals, however, the Commission 
expected the impact to be a positive one. The Commission therefore 
certified, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposals in the NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. No comments were filed in 
response to that Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification.
    163. Document FCC 16-101 extends the NDBEDP to include the U.S. 
territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. 
As a result, up to 56 entities may be certified to participate in the 
permanent NDBEDP.
    164. Document FCC 16-101 provides that current state programs and 
other entities that want to participate in the permanent NDBEDP must 
seek certification for a five-year period and every five years 
thereafter. If a current program wants to renew its certification or 
another entity wants to apply for certification, it must, one year 
prior to the expiration of the five-year certification period, submit 
an application explaining why it is eligible to participate in the 
NDBEDP.
    165. To help address a persistent shortage of qualified trainers to 
provide individualized training to consumers on how to use NDBEDP-
distributed equipment, document FCC 16-101 permits certified programs 
to use up to 2.5% of their annual funding allocations, or approximately 
$250,000 annually for all certified programs, for the costs of train-
the-trainer activities and programs during the first five years

[[Page 65974]]

of the permanent program and directs the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (the Bureau) to assess the need for continuing such 
funding beyond this period.
    166. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require all certified programs 
to submit reports about their NDBEDP activities to the Commission every 
six months. Document FCC 16-101 finds that continuing to receive this 
data will be useful to the permanent program as well, because regular 
reporting is necessary to ensure that certified programs maintain and 
keep current NDBEDP-related data and to provide accurate snapshots of 
that data consistently across all certified programs for oversight and 
evaluation purposes. At the same time, document FCC 16-101 sets forth 
generally the categories of required information and directs the Bureau 
to determine the specific items of information to be reported, which 
the Bureau may adjust and streamline over time and in conjunction with 
the planning and implementation of the centralized database, which is 
discussed next. Streamlining reporting requirements will reduce the 
administrative burden of the certified programs participating in the 
permanent NDBEDP.
    167. In document FCC 16-101, the Commission directs the Bureau, in 
coordination with the appropriate Commission offices and other 
stakeholders, to establish a centralized database that would assist 
state programs to comply with the reporting and reimbursement claim 
requirements under the permanent NDBEDP. First, upon completion of the 
database, all state programs would be required to submit information 
about their NDBEDP-related activities into the database and use the 
database to generate reports for submission to the Commission every six 
months. Second, all state programs would be able to submit data 
regarding their NDBEDP-related expenses into the database and generate 
reimbursement claims for submission to the TRS Fund Administrator. 
State programs currently maintain their own databases or pay for 
alternative databases to perform these functions. Submission of data 
into a centralized database that is established and maintained by the 
Commission to perform these functions would likely reduce the 
administrative costs for these state programs. Collecting data in a 
uniform manner from the certified programs would also improve oversight 
and administration of the NDBEDP by enabling the Commission to 
aggregate and analyze that data.
    168. 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, a 
Commission official designated by the Bureau. Within this annual 
allocation amount, the Commission did not establish any caps for costs 
associated with state and local outreach, assessments, equipment, 
installation, or training, but did establish a cap for administrative 
costs. The Commission 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. 
Document FCC 16-101 amends the rules 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. Document FCC 16-101 also recognizes that during the 
first three years of the NDBEDP pilot program, some programs' 
administrative costs exceeded the allowable 15% reimbursable amount. As 
discussed further above, document FCC 16-101 calls for the creation of 
a centralized database to be used by certified programs for generating 
reports and reimbursement claims, which is likely to produce 
administrative cost savings for programs that maintain their own 
databases or pay for alternative databases to perform these functions. 
Certified programs may also petition for and the Bureau may grant a 
waiver of the administrative cost cap rule upon a showing of good cause 
and a finding that particular facts make compliance with the rule 
inconsistent with the public interest. These measures, taken together, 
may alleviate the administrative burdens for certified programs 
operating in the permanent NDBEDP by making it easier to operate within 
the 15% administrative cost cap.
    169. During each year of the pilot program, the Commission has set 
aside $500,000 of the $10 million available annually to perform 
national outreach to promote the NDBEDP. Given the significant progress 
in publicizing the NDBEDP during the pilot program, document FCC 16-101 
continues to fund national outreach efforts, but at a reduced level of 
$250,000 for each of the first five years of the permanent program, and 
directs the Bureau to determine the extent to which national outreach 
efforts and funding should be continued thereafter and whether to 
extend Perkins's national outreach services for another five-year 
period or to invite entities, via a public notice, to submit 
applications to conduct these efforts.
    170. 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, as well as to 
submit to audits arranged by the Commission or its delegated 
authorities. Document FCC 16-101 continues those audit requirements and 
also requires each certified program to submit a copy of its annual 
audit to the NDBEDP Administrator.
    171. The Commission finds that the rules adopted in document FCC 
16-101 will not have a significant economic impact on the entities that 
are part of the NDBEDP because the Commission will reimburse these 
entities for all of their NDBEDP expenses from the TRS Fund, up to 
their annual funding allocations. The rules adopted in document FCC 16-
101 are administrative in nature, intended to reduce the administrative 
burden on certified programs, increase program transparency, benefit 
equipment recipients, improve the Commission's administration and 
oversight of the NDBEDP, and will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. To the extent that 
there is an economic impact on small entities as a result of the rules 
adopted in document FCC 16-101, the Commission believes the impact to 
be a positive one.
    172. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that 
the rules adopted in document FCC 16-101 will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    173. The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 16-101 in a report 
to Congress and the Governmental Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to 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, 
document FCC 16-101 is ADOPTED and the Commission's rules are hereby 
AMENDED.
    Section 64.610 of the Commission's rules will remain in effect 
until after all reports have been submitted, all payments and 
adjustments have been made, all wind-down activities have been 
completed, and no issues with the

[[Page 65975]]

regard to the NDBEDP pilot program remain pending.
    The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 16-101, including a 
copy of this final 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 amends 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. Add subpart GG to read as follows:

Subpart GG--National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program

Sec.
64.6201 [Reserved]
64.6203 [Reserved]
64.6205 [Reserved]
64.6207 Certification to receive funding.
64.6209 Eligibility criteria.
64.6211 Equipment distribution and related services.
64.6213 Payments to NDBEDP certified programs.
64.6215 Reporting requirements.
64.6217 Complaints.
64.6219 Whistleblower protections.

Subpart GG--National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program


Sec.  64.6201  [Reserved]


Sec.  64.6203  [Reserved]


Sec.  64.6205  [Reserved]


Sec.  64.6207  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 
entity authorized to receive reimbursement for NDBEDP activities from 
the TRS Fund. Such entity will have full 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.
    (a) Eligibility for certification. Public or private entities, 
including, but not limited to, equipment distribution programs, 
vocational rehabilitation programs, assistive technology programs, 
schools for the deaf, blind, or deaf-blind, organizational affiliates, 
independent living centers, or private educational facilities, may 
apply to the Commission for certification.
    (b) When to apply. Applications for certification shall be filed:
    (1) Within 60 days after the effective date of this section;
    (2) At least one year prior to the expiration of a program's 
certification;
    (3) Within 30 days after public notice of a program's 
relinquishment of certification; and
    (4) If an application deadline is extended or a vacancy exists for 
other reasons than relinquishment or expiration of a certification, 
within the time period specified by public notice.
    (c) Qualifications. Applications shall contain sufficient detail to 
demonstrate the entity's ability to meet all criteria required for 
certification and a commitment to comply with all Commission 
requirements governing the NDBEDP. The Commission shall review 
applications and determine whether to grant certification based on the 
ability of an entity 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:
    (1) Expertise in the field of deaf-blindness, including familiarity 
with the culture and etiquette of individuals who are deaf-blind;
    (2) The ability to communicate effectively with individuals 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;
    (3) Administrative and financial management experience;
    (4) 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;
    (5) Experience with the distribution of specialized customer 
premises equipment, especially to individuals who are deaf-blind;
    (6) Experience in training consumers on how to use Equipment and 
how to set up Equipment for its effective use;
    (7) Familiarity with Covered Services; and,
    (8) If the applicant is seeking renewal of certification, ability 
to provide Equipment and related services in compliance with this 
subpart.
    (d) Conflicts of interest. (1) An applicant for certification shall 
disclose in its application any relationship, arrangement, or agreement 
with a manufacturer or provider of Equipment or related services that 
poses an actual or potential conflict of interest, as well as the steps 
the applicant will take to eliminate such actual or potential conflict 
or to minimize the associated risks. If an applicant learns of a 
potential or actual conflict while its application is pending, it must 
immediately disclose such conflict to the Commission. The Commission 
may reject an application for NDBEDP certification, or may require an 
applicant, as a condition of certification, to take additional steps to 
eliminate, or to minimize the risks associated with, an actual or 
potential conflict of interest, if relationships, arrangements, or 
agreements affecting the applicant are likely to impede its objectivity 
in the distribution of Equipment or its ability to comply with NDBEDP 
requirements.
    (2) A certified entity shall disclose to the Commission any 
relationship, arrangement, or agreement with a manufacturer or provider 
of Equipment or related services that comes into being or is discovered 
after certification is granted and that poses an actual or potential 
conflict of interest, as well as the steps the entity will take to 
eliminate such actual or potential conflict or to minimize the 
associated risks, within 30 days after the entity learns or should have 
learned of such actual or potential conflict of interest. The 
Commission may suspend or revoke an NDBEDP certification or may require 
a certified entity, as a condition of continued certification, to take 
additional steps to eliminate, or to minimize the risks associated 
with, an actual or potential conflict of interest, if relationships, 
arrangements, or agreements affecting the entity are likely to impede 
its objectivity in the distribution of Equipment or its ability to 
comply with NDBEDP requirements.
    (e) Certification period. Certification granted under this section 
shall be for a period of five years. A program may apply for renewal of 
its certification by filing a new application at least one year prior 
to the expiration of the certification period. If a certified entity is 
replaced prior to the expiration of the

[[Page 65976]]

certification period, the successor entity's certification will expire 
on the date that the replaced entity's certification would have 
expired.
    (f) Notification of substantive change. A certified program shall 
notify the Commission within 60 days of any substantive change that 
bears directly on its ability to meet the qualifications necessary for 
certification under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (g) Relinquishment of certification. A program wishing to 
relinquish its certification before its certification expires shall 
electronically provide written notice of its intent to do so to the 
NDBEDP Administrator and the TRS Fund Administrator at least 90 days in 
advance, explaining the reason for such relinquishment and providing 
its proposed departure date. After receiving such notice, the 
Commission shall take such steps as may be necessary, consistent with 
this subpart, to ensure continuity and effective oversight of the 
NDBEDP for the affected state.
    (h) Suspension or revocation of certification. The Commission may 
suspend or revoke NDBEDP certification if, after notice and an 
opportunity to object, the Commission determines that an entity is no 
longer qualified for certification. Within 30 days after being notified 
of a proposed suspension or revocation of certification, the reason 
therefor, and the applicable suspension or revocation procedures, a 
certified entity may present written arguments and any relevant 
documentation as to why suspension or revocation of certification is 
not warranted. Failure to respond to a notice of suspension or 
revocation within 30 days may result in automatic suspension or 
revocation of certification. A suspension of certification will remain 
in effect until the expiration date, if any, or until the fulfillment 
of conditions stated in a suspension decision. A revocation will be 
effective for the remaining portion of the current certification 
period. In the event of suspension or revocation, the Commission shall 
take such steps as may be necessary, consistent with this subpart, to 
ensure continuity and effective oversight of the NDBEDP for the 
affected state.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) Certification transitions. When a new entity is certified as a 
state's program, the previously certified entity shall:
    (1) Within 30 days after the new entity is certified, and as a 
condition precedent to receiving payment for any reimbursement claims 
pending as of or after the date of certification of the successor 
entity,
    (i) Transfer to the new entity all NDBEDP data, records, and 
information for the previous five years, and any Equipment remaining in 
inventory;
    (ii) Provide notification in accessible formats about the newly-
certified state program to state residents who are in the process of 
obtaining Equipment or related services, or who received Equipment 
during the previous three-year period; and
    (iii) Inform the NDBEDP Administrator that such transfer and 
notification have been completed;
    (2) Submit all reimbursement claims, reports, audits, and other 
required information relating to the previously certified entity's 
provision of Equipment and related services; and
    (3) Take all other steps reasonably necessary to ensure an orderly 
transfer of responsibilities and uninterrupted functioning of the state 
program.


Sec.  64.6209  Eligibility criteria.

    Before providing Equipment or related services to an individual, a 
certified program shall verify the individual's eligibility in 
accordance with this section.
    (a) Verification of disability. A certified program shall require 
an individual applying for Equipment and related services to provide 
verification of disability in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) 
of this section.
    (1) The individual may provide an attestation from a professional 
with direct knowledge of the individual's disability, either to the 
best of the professional's knowledge or under penalty of perjury, that 
the applicant is deaf-blind (as defined in Sec.  64.6203(c) of this 
part). Such attestation shall include the attesting professional's full 
name, title, and contact information, including business name, address, 
phone number, and email address. Such attestation shall also include 
the basis of the attesting professional's knowledge that the individual 
is deaf-blind and may also include information about the individual's 
functional abilities to use Covered Services in various settings.
    (2) The individual may provide existing documentation that the 
individual is deaf-blind, such as an individualized education program 
(IEP) or a Social Security determination letter.
    (b) Verification of income eligibility. A certified program shall 
require an individual applying for Equipment and related services to 
provide verification that his or her income does not exceed 400 percent 
of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9902(2), or 
that he or she is enrolled in a federal program with an income 
eligibility requirement that does not exceed 400 percent of the Federal 
Poverty Guidelines, such as Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, Supplemental Security Income, Federal Public Housing 
Assistance, or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. 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. When an applicant is not already enrolled in a 
qualifying low-income program, income eligibility may be verified by 
the certified program using appropriate and reasonable means.
    (c) Prohibition against requiring employment. No certified program 
may require, for eligibility, that an applicant be employed or actively 
seeking employment.
    (d) Availability of Covered Services. A certified program may 
require an equipment recipient to demonstrate, for eligibility, that a 
Covered Service that the Equipment is designed to use is available for 
use by the individual.
    (e) Age. A certified program may not establish eligibility criteria 
that exclude low-income individuals who are deaf-blind of a certain age 
from applying for or receiving Equipment if the needs of such 
individuals are not being met through other available resources.
    (f) Reverification. If an individual who has previously received 
equipment from a certified program applies to a certified program for 
additional Equipment or related services one year or more after the 
individual's income was last verified, the certified program shall re-
verify an individual's income eligibility in accordance with paragraph 
(b) before providing new Equipment or related services. If a certified 
program has reason to believe that an individual's vision or hearing 
has improved sufficiently that the individual is no longer eligible for 
Equipment or related services, the certified program shall require 
reverification of the individual's disability in accordance with 
paragraph (a) before providing new Equipment or related services.


Sec.  64.6211  Equipment distribution and related services.

    (a) A certified program shall:
    (1) Distribute Equipment and provide related services;
    (2) Permit the transfer of a recipient's account, records, and any 
title to and control of the distributed Equipment to another state's 
certified program when a recipient relocates to another state;

[[Page 65977]]

    (3) Permit the transfer of a recipient's account, records, and any 
title to and control of the distributed Equipment from another state's 
NDBEDP certified program when a recipient relocates to the program's 
state;
    (4) Prohibit recipients from transferring Equipment received under 
the NDBEDP to another person through sale or otherwise, and if it 
learns that an individual has unlawfully obtained, sold, or transferred 
Equipment, take appropriate steps to reclaim the Equipment or its 
worth;
    (5) Include the following or a substantially similar attestation on 
all consumer application forms:

    I certify that all information provided on this application, 
including information about my disability and income, is true, 
complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I authorize 
program representatives to verify the information provided.
    I permit information about me to be shared with my state's 
current and successor program managers and representatives for the 
administration of the program and for the delivery of equipment and 
services to me. I also permit information about me to be reported to 
the Federal Communications Commission for the administration, 
operation, and oversight of the program.
    If I am accepted into the program, I agree to use program 
services solely for the purposes intended. I understand that I may 
not sell, give, or lend to another person any equipment provided to 
me by the program.
    If I provide any false records or fail to comply with these or 
other requirements or conditions of the program, program officials 
may end services to me immediately. Also, if I violate these or 
other requirements or conditions of the program on purpose, program 
officials may take legal action against me.
    I certify that I have read, understand, and accept these 
conditions to participate in iCanConnect (the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program);

    (6) Conduct outreach, in accessible formats, to inform state 
residents about the NDBEDP, which may include the development and 
maintenance of a program Web site;
    (7) Engage an independent auditor to conduct an annual audit, 
submit a copy of the annual audit to the NDBEDP Administrator, and 
submit to audits as deemed appropriate by the Commission or its 
delegated authorities;
    (8) Document compliance with all Commission requirements governing 
the NDBEDP and provide such documentation to the Commission upon 
request;
    (9) Retain all records associated with the distribution of 
Equipment and provision of related services under the NDBEDP, including 
records that support reimbursement claims and reports required by 
Sec. Sec.  64.6213 and 64.6215 of this part, for a minimum of five 
years; and
    (10) Comply with other applicable provisions of this section.
    (b) A certified program shall not:
    (1) Impose restrictions on specific brands, models or types of 
communications technology that recipients may receive to access Covered 
Services; or
    (2) Disable or hinder the use of, or direct manufacturers or 
vendors of Equipment to disable or hinder the use of, any capabilities, 
functions, or features on distributed Equipment that are needed to 
access Covered Services;
    (3) Accept any type of financial arrangement from Equipment vendors 
that creates improper incentives to purchase particular Equipment.


Sec.  64.6213  Payments to NDBEDP certified programs.

    (a) 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.
    (b) Upon certification and at the beginning of each TRS Fund year, 
state programs may elect to submit reimbursement claims on a monthly, 
quarterly, or semiannual basis;
    (c) Within 30 days after the end of each reimbursement period 
during the TRS Fund year, each certified program must submit 
documentation that supports its claim for reimbursement of the 
reasonable costs of the following:
    (1) Equipment and related expenses, including maintenance, repairs, 
warranties, returns, refurbishing, upgrading, and replacing Equipment 
distributed to consumers;
    (2) Individual needs assessments;
    (3) Installation of Equipment and individualized consumer training;
    (4) Maintenance of an inventory of Equipment that can be loaned to 
consumers during periods of Equipment repair or used for other NDBEDP 
purposes, such as conducting individual needs assessments;
    (5) Outreach efforts to inform state residents about the NDBEDP;
    (6) Train-the-trainer activities and programs;
    (7) Travel expenses; and
    (8) Administrative costs, defined as indirect and direct costs that 
are not included in other cost categories of this paragraph (c) and 
that are necessary for the operation of a program, but not to exceed 15 
percent of the certified program's funding allocation.
    (d) Documentation will be provided in accordance with claim filing 
instructions issued by the TRS Fund Administrator. The NDBEDP 
Administrator and the TRS Fund Administrator may require a certified 
program to submit supplemental information and documentation when 
necessary to verify particular claims.
    (e) 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.


Sec.  64.6215  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Every six months, for the periods January through June and July 
through December, a certified program shall submit data to the 
Commission in the following categories:
    (1) Each Equipment recipient's identity and other relevant 
characteristics;
    (2) Information about the Equipment provided, including costs;
    (3) Information about assessments, installation, and training, 
including costs;
    (4) Information about local outreach undertaken, including costs; 
and
    (5) Promptness of service.
    (b) The categories of information to be reported may be 
supplemented by the Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, as 
necessary to further the purposes of the program and prevent fraud, 
waste, and abuse. Reports are due 60 days after the end of a reporting 
period. The specific items of information to be reported in each 
category and the manner in which they are to be reported shall be set 
forth in instructions issued by the NDBEDP Administrator.
    (c) 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

[[Page 65978]]

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.


Sec.  64.6217  Complaints.

    Complaints against NDBEDP certified programs for alleged violations 
of this subpart may be either informal or formal.
    (a) Informal complaints. (1) An informal complaint may be 
transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any 
reasonable means, such as letter, fax, telephone, TTY, email, or the 
Commission's online complaint filing system.
    (2) 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 Communications Act or the 
Commission's rules, or both; 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.
    (3) 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.
    (b) Review and disposition of informal complaints. (1) 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. 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.
    (2) 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 (c) of this section.
    (c) 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 Communications Act or this subpart.
    (d) 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 by the 
Communications 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.


Sec.  64.6219  Whistleblower protections.

    (a) 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, or to any federal or state law 
enforcement entity, any known or suspected violations of the 
Communications 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.
    (b) 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.

0
3. Effective July 1, 2017, add Sec. Sec.  64.6201, 64.6203, and 64.6205 
to subpart GG to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec.
64.6201 Purpose.
64.6203 Definitions.
64.6205 Administration of the program.
* * * * *


Sec.  64.6201  Purpose.

    The National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) is 
established to support programs that distribute Equipment to low-income 
individuals who are deaf-blind.


Sec.  64.6203  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions shall 
apply:
    (a) Covered Services. Telecommunications service, Internet access 
service, and advanced communications services, including interexchange 
services and advanced telecommunications and information services.
    (b) 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 Covered Services.
    (c) Individual who is deaf-blind. (1) Any individual:
    (i) 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;
    (ii) 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
    (iii) For whom the combination of impairments described in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section cause extreme difficulty 
in attaining independence in daily life activities, achieving 
psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining a vocation.
    (2) An individual's functional abilities with respect to using 
Covered Services in various environments shall be considered when 
determining whether the individual is deaf-blind under paragraphs 
(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
    (3) The definition in this paragraph (c) 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

[[Page 65979]]

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.
    (d) Specialized customer premises equipment means equipment 
employed on the premises of a person, which is commonly used by 
individuals with disabilities to achieve access to Covered Services.
    (e) TRS Fund Administrator. The entity selected by the Commission 
to administer the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS 
Fund) established pursuant to subpart F.


Sec.  64.6205  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, 
determine annual funding allocations and reallocations, and review 
reimbursement claims to ensure that the claimed costs are consistent 
with the NDBEDP rules.

[FR Doc. 2016-22713 Filed 9-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P