Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the 
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010
Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers’ 
Petition for Class Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 
of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the 
Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to 
Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and 
Equipment by People with Disabilities
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CG Docket No. 10-213
ORDER
Adopted:  January 28, 2015 Released: January 28, 2015
By the Acting Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this order, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) of the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) grants an extension of the waiver from the 
Commission’s advanced communications services (ACS) accessibility rules to a distinct, narrow class of 
e-readers.  We conclude that this narrow class of e-readers, while capable of accessing ACS, continues to 
be designed primarily for reading text-based digital works, not for ACS.  We therefore extend the waiver,
previously granted on January 28, 2014, for one year, until January 28, 2016.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. In 2010, Congress enacted the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act (CVAA)
1
to amend the Communications Act of 1934 (Act) “to help ensure that 
individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better 
access video programming.”
2
  Section 716 of the Act, as added by the CVAA, requires that providers of 
ACS and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS make their services and products accessible to 
individuals with disabilities, unless it is not achievable to do so.
3
  In 2011, the Commission adopted rules 
                                                     
1
Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified in various sections of 47 U.S.C.), amended by Pub. L. No. 
111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010) (technical corrections).
2
S. Rep. No. 111-386 at 1 (Senate Report) (2010); H.R. Rep. No. 111-563 at 19 (House Report) (2010) (noting that 
the communications marketplace had undergone a “fundamental transformation” since Congress adopted Section 
255 of the Act in 1996).  See 47 U.S.C. § 255 (requiring access to telecommunications services and equipment).
3
47 U.S.C. § 617. ACS is defined as interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service; non-
interconnected VoIP service; electronic message service, such as e-mail, instant messaging, and SMS text 
messaging; and interoperable video conferencing service.  Id. § 153(1); 47 C.F.R. § 14.10(c).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
2
to implement the ACS provisions of section 716 of the Act.
4
The Commission also adopted rules to 
implement the recordkeeping and enforcement provisions of section 717 of the Act,
5
which apply to 
entities that are subject to section 716.
6
3. By its terms, section 716 provides that the Commission may grant waivers of the ACS 
requirements for multipurpose equipment or services or classes of multipurpose equipment or services 
that are capable of accessing ACS but are nonetheless designed primarily for purposes other than use of 
ACS.
7
  In instances where equipment and services may have multiple primary or co-primary purposes, 
waivers may not be warranted, depending on the circumstances.
8
  
4. In conducting a waiver analysis, the Commission’s rules provide for a case-by-case 
examination of whether the equipment is designed to be used for ACS purposes by the general public and 
whether and how the ACS features or functions are advertised, announced, or marketed.
9
  In order to 
make this determination, the Commission must consider “whether the ACS functionality or feature is 
suggested to consumers as a reason for purchasing, installing, downloading, or accessing the equipment 
or service.”
10
  The Commission may also consider the manufacturer’s market research and the usage 
trends of similar equipment or services in order to determine whether a manufacturer or provider designed 
the equipment or service primarily for purposes other than ACS.
11
  Furthermore, the following factors 
may be relevant to a primary purpose waiver determination:  whether the ACS functionality is designed to 
be operable outside of other functions or aids other functions; the impact that the removal of the ACS 
feature has on the primary purpose for which the equipment or services is claimed to be designed; and an 
                                                     
4
Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Amendments to the Commission’s Rules 
Implementing Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1966; Accessible Mobile Phone Options for People who are Blind, Deaf-Blind, or Have 
Low Vision, CG Docket No. 10-213, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 (2011) (ACS Report and Order).  See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 14.1-
14.21.  Specifically, the ACS rules apply to models or versions of products and services that are introduced into the 
market or upgraded on or after October 8, 2013.  ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14601-05, ¶¶ 105-13. See 
also 47 C.F.R. § 14.20.  
5
47 U.S.C. § 618; 47 C.F.R. §§ 14.30-14.52.
6
47 U.S.C. § 617.  See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14650-77, ¶¶ 219-78.  
7
47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1).  See also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14634, ¶ 181; 47 C.F.R. § 14.5.  The 
Commission delegated to CGB the authority to act upon all such waiver requests.  ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC 
Rcd at 14566, 14640-41, ¶¶ 19, 197.
8
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14635, ¶ 184 (offering as an example of equipment or services that have 
multiple primary or co-primary purposes, smartphones that are designed for voice communications, text messaging, 
e-mail, web browsing, video chat, digital video recording, mobile hotspot connectivity, and several other purposes).  
In other words, multipurpose equipment or services that are capable of accessing ACS and are designed primarily or 
co-primarily for ACS, do not qualify for a waiver under this provision.  47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 
14.5(a)(1).  A product or service may have co-primary purposes when it contains multiple features and functions.  
Conversely, as noted in the ACS Report and Order, the House and Senate Reports explain that “‘a device designed 
for a purpose unrelated to accessing advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, access to 
such services.  In this case, the Commission may find that to promote technological innovation the accessibility 
requirements need not apply.’”  ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14634, ¶ 181 (quoting House Report at 26; 
Senate Report at 8). 
9
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at14634-35, ¶¶ 182, 183, 185.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(2).
10
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14635, ¶ 185 (footnote omitted).
11
Id. at 14635, ¶ 183.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
3
examination of waivers for similar products or services.
12
  In addition to considering these various factors
when examining a waiver request, the Commission must utilize its general waiver standard, which 
requires good cause to waive the rules and a showing that the particular facts of the petition make 
compliance with the relevant requirements inconsistent with the public interest.
13
5. The Commission may entertain a waiver for equipment and services individually or as a 
class and may limit the time of its coverage, with or without a provision for renewal.
14
  The Commission 
will exercise its authority to grant class waivers, which apply to more than one piece of equipment or 
more than one service, in instances in which classes are carefully defined and the equipment or services 
share common defining characteristics.
15
  In addition, the Commission will examine the extent to which 
the petitioner has explained in detail the expected lifecycle of the equipment or services that are part of 
the class.
16
  Substantial upgrades are considered new products or services for the purpose of this waiver 
analysis.
17
  To the extent a petitioner seeks a class waiver for multiple generations of similar equipment 
and services, the Commission will examine the justification for the waiver extending through the lifecycle 
of each discrete generation.
18
  The Commission also will take a careful look at industry developments to 
determine whether any extensions are justified.  
6. All products and services covered by a class waiver that are introduced into the market 
while the waiver is in effect will ordinarily be subject to the waiver for the duration of the life of those 
particular products or services – i.e., for as long as those particular products or services are sold.
19
  For 
example, if a particular model covered by a class waiver were to be introduced to the public on the day 
before the expiration of the waiver period, then all products of that particular model that are sold from 
that point forward would be covered by the waiver.
20
  For products and services already under 
development after a class waiver expires, the achievability analysis may take into consideration the 
developmental stage of the product and the effort and expense needed to achieve accessibility at that point 
in the developmental stage.
21
  
                                                     
12
Id. at 14636, ¶ 186.
13
Id. at 14637, ¶ 188 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; Northeast Cellular Telephone Co., L.P. v. FCC, 897 F. 2d 1164, 1166 
(D.C. Cir. 1990)).
14
Id. at 14638-39, ¶ 192.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(c).
15
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14639, ¶ 193.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(b).
16
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14639-40, ¶ 194.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(c)(2).
17
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14639, ¶ 192.  See also id. at 14609, ¶ 124  (“Natural opportunities to 
assess or reassess the achievability of accessibility may include, for example, the redesign of a product model or 
service, new versions of software, upgrades to existing features or functionalities, significant rebundling or 
unbundling  of product and service packages, or any other significant modification that may require redesign.”).
18
Id. at 14640, ¶ 195.
19
Id. at 14640, ¶ 194.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(c)(2).
20
A new waiver would be required if a substantial upgrade is made that changes the nature of the product or service.  
See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14639, ¶ 192.  See also Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 
of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act and 
Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment 
by People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973, ¶ 5 (CGB 2012) (CEA/NCTA/ESA Waiver Order).
21
ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640, ¶ 194.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(c)(2).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
4
7. E-Reader Waiver Order.  On January 28, 2014, in response to a petition filed by a 
Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers (the Coalition)
22
and pursuant to its delegated authority,
23
the 
Bureau granted a limited-duration waiver of the ACS accessibility rules for a defined class of basic e-
readers that the Bureau determined were not designed primarily or co-primarily for ACS.
24
The Bureau
defined this class of basic e-readers to include any mobile electronic device that is capable of accessing 
ACS, designed primarily for the purpose of reading text-based digital works, such as books and 
periodicals, and meets each of the following requirements:
(1) The device has no LCD screen, but rather utilizes a screen that is designed to optimize 
reading.
(2) The device has no camera.
(3) The device is not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS client applications and 
the device manufacturer does not develop ACS applications for its respective device, but the 
device may be offered or shipped to consumers with a browser and social media applications.
(4) The device is marketed to consumers as a reading device and promotional material about the 
device does not tout the capability to access ACS.
25
8. Although the Coalition requested an indefinite waiver, the Bureau found that the rapid 
changes in e-reader and ACS technologies and the expanding importance of ACS technologies in 
Americans’ daily lives weighed in favor of a limited-duration waiver.
26
  Accordingly, the Bureau granted 
a waiver to the class of basic e-readers for one year, until January 28, 2015.
27
  
III. THE COALITION PETITION
9. On September 4, 2014, the Coalition filed a request for an extension of the class waiver 
granted in the E-Reader Waiver Order.
28
  The Bureau placed the Coalition Petition on Public Notice for 
comment on September 26, 2014.
29
10. The Coalition requests an ongoing waiver of the accessibility requirements for equipment 
used for ACS for the class of basic e-readers as defined in the E-Reader Waiver Order.
30
  The Coalition 
states that, although access to ACS is available through the basic e-reader browser,
31
accessing text-based 
                                                     
22
Petition for Waiver, CG Docket No. 10-213 (filed May 16, 2013).  The Coalition consists of Amazon.com, Inc., 
Kobo, Inc., and Sony Electronics Inc.
23
See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14566, 14640-41, ¶¶ 19, 197.
24
Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010; Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers’ Petition for 
Class Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring 
Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by People with Disabilities, CG Docket No. 
10-213, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 674, 686, ¶ 18 (CGB 2014) (E-Reader Waiver Order).
25
Id. at 683, ¶ 15.
26
Id. at 689, ¶ 23.
27
Id. at 691, ¶ 25.
28
Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers Petition for Extension of Waiver, CG Docket No. 10-213 (filed Sept. 4, 
2014) (Coalition Petition).
29
Request for Comment on Petition for Extension of Class Waiver of Commission’s Rules for Access to Advanced 
Communications Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities, CG Docket No. 10-213, 29 FCC Rcd 11513 
(CGB 2014).
30
Coalition Petition at 1-2.
31
Id. at 5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
5
works (i.e., reading) remains the single purpose of these devices.
32
  In support, the Coalition first explains
that, since the Bureau granted the initial waiver, basic e-readers continue to be marketed for reading and 
not for ACS, noting that recent online advertisements focus on the basic e-readers’ functions related to 
reading and do not mention or describe ACS functions.
33
  Second, the Coalition claims that media reports 
and consumer reviews of basic e-reader devices continue to demonstrate “that the public perceives e-
readers as single-purpose devices intended for reading.”
34
According to the Coalition, some users prefer 
basic e-readers to other devices, such as tablets, because e-readers offer “no distractions from the reading 
experience.”
35
  The Coalition emphasizes that even as multipurpose devices like tablets are increasing in 
functionality, basic e-readers remain optimized for reading text-based digital works, not for ACS.
36
  
Finally, the Coalition reports updated industry data that, they claim, continues to indicate only a very 
small percentage of basic e-reader users (just over four percent) launch their browsers to either access 
ACS from their e-readers or for other purposes.
37
  
11. The Coalition further asserts that extending the waiver would satisfy the Commission’s 
general waiver standard that good cause exists and that granting a waiver would not be inconsistent with 
the public interest.
38
  Specifically, it claims that if the waiver is not extended, manufacturers would be 
discouraged from offering browsers on devices that are not designed or primarily used for ACS, including 
devices being created as part of the “Internet of Things,” such as smart refrigerators, thermostats, and 
                                                     
32
Id. at 3.  See also id. at 10 (stating that since the time of the initial waiver and the Coalition Petition, “the facts 
concerning the design, marketing, and use of e-readers have not changed”).
33
Id. at 4 (stating that recent online advertising materials describe the Kindle Paperwhite “as ‘the best device for 
reading,’ stating that [it] is ‘lightweight,’ ‘carries over a thousand books,’ allows users to ‘read day or night,’ and is 
‘the best way to read period’” and describe the Kobo e-readers as “‘[t]he ultimate in readability,’” noting that “the 
devices are ‘carefully crafted to deliver a superior reading experience’”). 
34
Id. (referencing a USA Today column stating that “‘e-readers are ideal for people who simply like to read.  
They’re designed primarily for downloading electronic books, magazines and newspapers from a wireless store’”) 
(quoting Marc Saltzman, e-Book Readers vs. Tablets:  Which One is Right for You?, USA Today, Feb. 23, 2014, 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/saltzman/2014/02/23/ereaders-vs-tablets/5575963/).   The Coalition 
also directs the Commission’s attention to consumer reviews of basic e-readers that emphasize the reading functions 
of these devices.  For example, a review of the Kindle Paperwhite stated that the device is “‘not a tablet, not a 
computer, my Paperwhite Kindle represents books for me.’”  Id. at 5 (quoting Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Second 
Generation Review, Hanselman.com (Apr. 10, 2014), available at
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/AmazonKindlePaperwhiteSECONDGENERATIONReviewPlusNewKindleSoftwa
reUpdate.aspx) (emphasis in original).  Similarly, a review of the Kobo Aura stated that the device did not “‘offer 
much in the way of bells-and-whistles . . . It’s not a tablet – It’s about reading books.’”  Id. (quoting Paul Stevens, 
Kobo Aura:  A Compact E-Reader That Packs a Punch, The Next Web (Oct. 9, 2013), available at 
http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2013/10/09/the-kobo-aura-a-compact-e-reader-that-packs-a-punch-review/). 
35
See Letter from Gerard J. Waldron, Counsel for Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers to Marlene Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, at 1-2 (Nov. 17, 2014) (Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte).  
36
See Coalition Petition at 7; Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 2.
37
Coalition Petition at 5-6.  See also Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 2.  The Coalition reports that a random 
sample of 414,139 active e-reader devices over a one-week period from July 30, 2014, to August 5, 2014, found that 
4.2% of the users of these devices had launched their browsers.  Coalition Petition at 5-6.  According to the 
Coalition, the average time the browser was left open was just over four minutes.  Id. at 6.  The Coalition alleges 
that this usage pattern “is consistent with brief look-ups on Wikipedia or visiting links within books, rather than 
regular use of ACS.”  Id.  The Coalition also states that 41% of browser sessions were “launched from within books 
or from other locations within the reading interface,” which, the Coalition asserts, suggests these users were not 
accessing ACS.  Id.  Based on the assumption that users who launch the browser directly from within books or 
reading applications were not using the browser for ACS, the Coalition estimates that, “at most, only 2.5% of all 
sample users may have launched the browser for ACS-related purposes.”  Id.
38
Coalition Petition at 1 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.3), 7-9.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
6
watches.
39
  The Coalition adds that if the waiver is not extended, basic e-readers would lose their 
distinctiveness as products that are “optimized solely for reading.”
40
  In this regard, the Coalition claims 
that the considerable hardware and software changes that would be necessary to make the ACS features 
accessible on these devices would increase their cost, weight, size, and complexity to such an extent that 
the devices would no longer be able to succeed as single purpose reading devices.
41
  More specifically, 
the Coalition claims that these “fundamental changes would hamper the ability of e-readers to optimize 
the reading experience.”
42
  The Coalition goes on to assert that not providing accessibility on basic e-
readers would not harm consumers because of the widespread availability of accessible alternatives to 
basic e-readers, including tablets, smartphones, and e-reading apps with screen-reading capabilities, some 
of which, the Coalition states, are “below the cost of all Coalition e-reader products.”
43
  The Coalition 
also notes that the price point of some of these alternatives are “significantly lower than when the waiver 
was first granted.”
44
  The Coalition adds that tablets “are becoming increasingly attractive options for 
schools because of their competitive pricing; their additional capabilities for video, audio, and software 
applications; their larger display options; and their accessibility features.”
45
12. Finally, to justify its request that the waiver be “ongoing,” the Coalition asserts that the 
narrow class definition of basic e-readers adopted in the E-Reader Waiver Order ensures that only 
devices that do not have ACS as a primary purpose will be included in the waiver.
46
  It adds that allowing 
the waiver to be ongoing would benefit the Commission by reducing administrative costs, benefit e-reader 
manufacturers by avoiding costly extension request proceedings, benefit industry by creating certainty, 
and benefit the public by not imposing requirements that would limit the development of reading-
optimized e-readers and other single-purpose, non-ACS devices.
47
13. Various consumer organizations, educational groups, library associations, and individual 
consumers oppose the Coalition Petition.
48
  Generally, these commenters maintain that ACS is a co-
primary purpose of basic e-readers.
49
  For example, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the 
                                                     
39
Id. at 8.
40
Id.  
41
Id. at 8-9.
42
Id. at 9.
43
Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 2; Coalition Petition at 11.  The Coalition states that Amazon’s line of Fire 
tablets are available for as low as $99, while two out of three e-readers from Amazon are priced above $99.  
Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 3.  In addition, the Coalition notes that accessible ACS can be used on 
smartphones, such as the LG L34C Optimus Fuel smartphone, which is available for “as low as $49 and does not 
require the purchase of a carrier plan.”  Id.
44
Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 3.
45
Id.
46
Coalition Petition at 12-13.
47
Id. at 13-14.
48
See Comments of National Federation of the Blind and American Council of the Blind (Oct. 27, 2014) (NFB and 
ACB Comments); Comments of Association on Higher Education and Disability (Oct. 22, 2014) (AHEAD 
Comments); Comments of Association of Research Libraries and American Library Association (Oct. 27, 2014) 
(ARL and ALA Comments); Reply Comments of Association of Research Libraries and American Library 
Association (Nov. 5, 2014) (ARL and ALA Reply Comments); Comments of James McCabe (Jan. 5, 2015); Letter 
from David H. Rothman, LibraryCity.org to The Honorable Tom E. Wheeler, Chairman, FCC (Jan. 5, 2015) 
(Rothman Ex Parte); Comments of Rick McKinney (Jan. 7, 2015).  
49
See Letter from John G. Pare, Jr., National Federation of the Blind (NFB), and Emily Lucio, Association on 
Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Nov. 20, 2014) at 1 (NFB and 
AHEAD Ex Parte).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
7
American Library Association (ALA) assert that basic e-readers are designed and marketed for ACS 
because (1) they include a WebKit-based Internet browser that is capable of accessing “nearly any web 
page” and “leaves open a wide array of ACS capability;”
50
and (2) consumers are likely to interpret the 
Coalition’s marketing materials discussing the WebKit-based Internet browser as offering ACS
capability.
51
  Additionally, ARL and ALA dispute the Coalition’s claim that consumers do not use basic 
e-readers to access ACS and, in support, cite to online discussion boards, articles, and blog posts that 
discuss the use of basic e-readers to access the mobile version of websites that provide users with the 
ability to access e-mail and potentially other forms of ACS.
52
The National Federation of the Blind 
(NFB) and the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) also challenge the Coalition’s 
data regarding the use of browsers on basic e-readers, stating that although it may reflect the current use 
of ACS on basic e-readers, it does not reflect the potential use of ACS by people who are blind or have 
vision loss.
53
  Furthermore, they question why basic e-readers include browsers, if, as the Coalition 
claims, ACS is not a co-primary purpose of these devices and assert that the Coalition is “intentionally 
marketing around the ACS capabilities of e-readers so that the products will be eligible for a waiver.”
54
14. Commenters opposed to the waiver extension also dispute the Coalition’s claim that such 
extension would be consistent with the public interest.
55
  NFB and the American Council of the Blind 
(ACB) state that an extension of the waiver would result in a “disability tax” and a “separate but equal” 
standard of access that is inconsistent with the purposes of the CVAA.
56
  Commenters also argue that the 
failure to make basic e-readers accessible will undermine federal nondiscrimination laws that direct 
educational institutions not to use e-readers or other technologies that are not accessible to people who are 
blind or have vision loss.  This, they contend, will place schools, libraries, and other public entities in the 
untenable position of using inaccessible technology and risking litigation; using more expensive 
                                                     
50
ARL and ALA Comments at 3.  ARL and ALA assert that using a browser “to post information on a social media 
website” should be considered evidence of ACS.  Id. at 3.  ARL and ALA also argue that “social media status 
updates” should be considered ACS and that basic e-readers are used for ACS because they allow users to 
participate in these forms of communication.  ARL and ALA Reply Comments at 2-3.  
51
ARL and ALA Comments at 3-5; ARL and ALA Reply Comments at 4 (claiming that Amazon’s marketing for its 
Webkit-based browser is “alerting all consumers with any knowledge of technology to the fact that its full-featured 
browser can be used for a range of dedicated communications functions, including services such as Gmail, and to 
access social media for the purposes of doing . . . personal communication”).  See also NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte
at 2 (stating that “the very customers the Coalition is targeting [with advertising] interpret the marketing material to 
advertise ACS”).
52
ARL and ALA Comments at 5-6 (noting that the basic e-reader Kindle browser “can successfully render nearly 
any ‘mobile-oriented’ website,’” including “mobile versions of Facebook, Gmail, Google Plus, and Twitter – all 
sites that have been described as ‘Kindle-friendly websites’ by some users”) (quoting Etienne de L’Amour, How to 
make the most of Kindle Paperwhite’s web browser, Mystical Faction (Aug. 10, 2013), available at http://mystical-
faction.blogspot.com/2013/08/making-most-of-kindle-paperwhites-web.html). 
53
NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte at 1.
54
Id. at 2.
55
NFB and ACB Comments at 2-8; ARL and ALA Comments at 6-8; NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte. 
56
NFB and ACB Comments at 2-5.  NFB, ACB, and AHEAD note that, despite the availability of “no cost” e-
reader applications that are accessible to blind users, the overall cost is higher for blind users, who must possess “a 
high-cost delivery system like a PC, multi-purpose tablet, or smartphone” to access those applications.  Id. at 2.  
NFB and ACB also claim that most tablets are more expensive than basic e-readers, and that such devices do not 
provide the simplistic interface of the basic e-reader that many blind users may desire.  NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte 
at 2; NFB and ACB Comments at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
8
technology; or rejecting all technological options.
57
  For similar reasons, ARL and ALA assert that the 
only way the public interest would be served is to deny the Coalition’s request because this action would 
increase access to ACS as well as books, magazines, articles, and other print media on basic e-readers for 
print-disabled users.
58
15. Commenters in opposition to the Coalition’s petition also claim that an extension of the 
waiver will not promote technological innovation, which, they state, was Congress’s purpose in enacting 
the waiver provision.
59
  NFB and ACB point out that earlier, discontinued e-reader models incorporated 
accessible features without sacrificing innovation and that the Commission should not assume that 
developers of other products would choose not to innovate rather than incorporate accessible features into 
their products.
60
  Finally, ARL and ALA urge that if the Bureau grants the waiver, it narrow the class 
definition of basic e-readers to exclude devices that are offered or shipped to consumers with a built-in 
browser because an e-reader that is truly a single-purpose device, intended only for reading, will not 
include a browser.
61
16. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) and the Internet Association support the 
Coalition Petition.
62
  These commenters argue that the primary purpose and reading-focused design of 
basic e-readers has not changed since the initial waiver was granted and that the waiver continues to be 
justified because ACS is not a primary or co-primary purpose of basic e-readers.
63
  The Internet 
Association also argues that extending the waiver would serve the public interest by “advancing the 
availability of single-purpose non-ACS devices,” including devices created as part of the “Internet of 
Things.”
64
  CEA also supports granting the waiver for an indefinite period of time, arguing that e-readers 
that fall within the class definition “will almost certainly qualify for a waiver” and that an ongoing waiver 
                                                     
57
NFB and ACB Comments at 7-8.  See also NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte at 2-3; AHEAD Comments at 1 (noting 
that guidance from the Department of Justice states that institutes of higher education cannot adopt inaccessible 
technologies); Rothman Ex Parte at 5.
58
ARL and ALA Comments at 6-8.
59
NFB and ACB Comments at 8-10 (citing House Report at 26); ARL and ALA Reply Comments at 7-8; Rothman 
Ex Parte at 2.  See also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14634, ¶ 181 (quoting House Report at 26; Senate 
Report at 8).
60
NFB and ACB Comments at 9.  See also ARL and ALA Reply Comments at 7-8 (arguing that because basic e-
readers are “an established technology” with core features that have “remained the same over several generations of 
products,” a waiver will not foster innovation in basic e-readers); id. at 8 (claiming that a denial of the waiver 
extension will not stifle innovation in products designed as part of the Internet of Things, because it is unlikely that 
consumers will use such objects to engage in communication with others and the applicability of the ACS 
accessibility rules to such devices can be considered independently from their applicability to basic e-readers).
61
ARL and ALA Comments at 8-9.  See also NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte at 2 (stating that “it is unclear why 
browsers exist on the devices at all” if ACS is not a co-primary purpose of the device).
62
See CEA Comments (Oct. 27, 2014); Internet Association Comments (Oct. 27, 2014).  The Internet Association 
consists of Airbnb, Amazon, AOL, Auction.com, eBay, Etsy, Expedia, Facebook, Gilt, Google, Groupon, IAC, 
LinkedIn, Lyft, Monster Worldwide, Netflix, Practice Fusion, Rackspace, reddit, Salesforce.com, Sidecar, 
SurveyMonkey, TripAdvisor, Twitter, Uber Technologies, Inc., Yelp, Yahoo!, and Zynga.  Internet Association 
Comments at 1, n.1.
63
Internet Association Comments at 2, 3; CEA Comments at 4-5.  See also Coalition Petition at 6 (stating “[i]n the 
time since the waiver was granted, e-readers’ primary purpose and reading-focused design has not changed”).  The 
Internet Association notes that the social networking applications preinstalled on basic e-readers provide only “one-
to-many social sharing functionality,” and urges the Bureau to reaffirm that using a browser to post information to a 
social media website (e.g., Facebook) is not ACS.  Internet Association Comments at 1-2.
64
Internet Association Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
9
would benefit the public, e-reader manufacturers, and the Commission for the reasons identified by the 
Coalition.
65
17. In its replies to these commenters, the Coalition reiterates many of the points made in its 
Petition to support its position that ACS has not become a primary purpose of basic e-readers since the 
Bureau granted the initial waiver
66
and that granting such a waiver would be in the public interest.
67
The 
Coalition denies ARL and ALA’s claim that it markets the ACS capabilities of basic e-readers, noting that 
the marketing materials cited by ARL and ALA make no mention of ACS and instead feature other, non-
ACS functions, such as connecting to the Kindle store and accessing Wikipedia.
68
  In addition, the 
Coalition denies that its marketing materials purposefully omit mention of the ACS capabilities of basic 
e-readers in an attempt to evade regulation; rather, the Coalition states, its marketing materials “do not 
advertise ACS capabilities for their e-readers because they are not designed for ACS.”
69
  The Coalition 
also insists that while some consumers may access ACS through the browsers installed on e-readers, 
industry data shows that “only a very small percentage of e-reader users launch the browser for any 
purpose, much less for ACS-related purposes.”
70
  In response to NFB and ACB’s assertions that users 
with disabilities face a financial burden because basic e-readers are not accessible, the Coalition provides 
additional data on the availability of smartphones and tablets at prices that are comparable to basic 
e-readers.
71
  The Coalition further maintains that extension of the waiver will encourage technological 
innovation by promoting the availability of e-readers as a single-purpose non-ACS device, and that “the 
simplicity of an e-reader is itself an innovation.”
72
  Finally, the Coalition opposes ARL and ALA’s 
suggestion to narrow the class definition to exclude e-readers that have a built-in browser.
73
  The 
Coalition states that a device that does not have a browser would not require a waiver because it would 
not be capable of accessing ACS.
74
IV. DISCUSSION  
18. We extend the waiver from the Commission’s ACS rules for the class of basic e-readers 
as defined in the E-Reader Waiver Order until January 28, 2016.  We limit the term of the waiver to one
year from the expiration of the initial waiver,
75
rather than grant the Coalition’s request for an ongoing 
waiver.  We continue to believe that, given the evolution of e-reader and tablet technologies and the 
expanding role of ACS in electronic devices, granting a waiver beyond a one-year period is outweighed 
by the public interest and congressional intent to ensure that Americans with disabilities have access to 
advanced communications technologies.
                                                     
65
CEA Comments at 6.  See also Coalition Comments at 13-14.
66
Reply Comments of the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers at 2 (Nov. 5, 2014) (Coalition Reply Comments).
67
Id. at 5-7.
68
Id. at 3.
69
Letter from Gerard J. Waldron, Counsel for Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, at 2 (Dec. 12, 2014) (Coalition Dec. 12, 2014 Ex Parte).  
70
Coalition Reply Comments at 4.
71
Id. at 5-6 (noting that the Fire HD 6 is available for as low as $99 and the LG Optimus Fuel 34C smartphone is 
available for $49.99, has Wi-Fi capability, and does not require the purchase of a carrier plan).
72
Id. at 7.
73
Id. at 8.
74
Id. 
75
The initial waiver expires on January 28, 2015. E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 691, ¶ 25.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
10
A. Extension of the Waiver
19. First, we reaffirm that the class of e-reader equipment for which the Coalition seeks a 
waiver is defined with sufficient specificity and that the devices in this class share enough common 
characteristics to be granted a class waiver under the framework of the ACS Report and Order.
76
  For 
purposes of the extension of this class waiver, we continue to define the class of basic e-readers as we did 
in the E-Reader Waiver Order,
77
to include any mobile electronic device that is capable of accessing 
ACS, designed primarily for the purpose of reading text-based digital works, such as books and 
periodicals, and meets each of the following requirements:
(1) The device has no LCD screen, but rather utilizes a screen that is designed to optimize 
reading.
(2) The device has no camera.
(3) The device is not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS client applications and 
the device manufacturer does not develop ACS applications for its respective device, but the 
device may be offered or shipped to consumers with a browser and social media applications.
(4) The device is marketed to consumers as a reading device and promotional material about the 
device does not tout the capability to access ACS.
20. We do not agree with ARL and ALA that the class definition should exclude devices that 
are offered or shipped to consumers with built-in browsers.
78
  As the Bureau has previously determined, 
“the mere inclusion of web browsers on these devices . . . is not sufficient to reach a determination that 
ACS is a primary or co-primary purpose of these devices.”
79
  The Coalition has identified multiple 
reasons for including browsers in e-readers that are unrelated to accessing ACS, such as looking up words 
or information on the Internet and downloading e-books.
80
  Moreover, if the device were not to include a 
web browser, it would be incapable of accessing ACS, and there would be no need for a waiver.
81
  
21. Next, we consider whether basic e-readers are designed primarily or co-primarily for 
ACS.  The Bureau previously concluded that basic e-readers “are capable of accessing ACS, are designed 
for multiple purposes, and that consumers do utilize them for ACS, but, at present . . . they are designed 
primarily for the purpose of reading.”
82
  Based on a review of the record, we conclude that, since the grant 
of the initial waiver, the primary purpose of basic e-readers has not changed and, as a result, they remain 
eligible for waiver under section 716(h)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act and section 14.5(a) of the Commission’s 
rules.
83
  
                                                     
76
See 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(b).  See also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14639, ¶ 193.
77
See E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 693, ¶ 15 (defining the class of basic e-readers).
78
See ARL and ALA Comments at 9.  See also NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte at 2 (stating that “it is unclear why 
browsers exist on the devices at all” if ACS is not a co-primary purpose of the device).  
79
E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 684, ¶ 17.  
80
Coalition Petition at 5.  
81
See 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(1)(i) (including the capability of accessing ACS as an element of the waiver 
consideration); ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14634, ¶ 181 (adopting the proposal to focus the “waiver 
inquiry on whether the multipurpose equipment or service has a feature or function that is capable of accessing ACS 
but is nonetheless designed primarily for purposes other than using ACS”).  
82
E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 683, ¶ 16.
83
47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1)(A)-(B); 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
11
22. The parties to this proceeding agree that browsers included on basic e-reader devices are 
capable of accessing ACS.
84
However, the ability of these devices to access ACS is not enough to 
conclude that ACS is a primary or co-primary purpose of these devices.
85
  There is no evidence in the 
record that the key design features of the basic e-reader that led the Bureau to previously conclude that the 
basic e-readers are not designed for ACS – i.e., the “relatively slow refresh screen rates, the absence of 
apps for integrated e-mail clients, the inability . . . to display video for any purpose, including video 
conferencing, and the lack of high powered processors” – have changed since the initial waiver was 
granted.
86
  These design features continue to support a finding that basic e-readers are not designed for 
ACS at this time.  In addition, as we noted in the E-Reader Waiver Order, the fact that the browsers 
installed on these devices can be used to post information to social media sites is not, in itself, sufficient 
to reach a determination that ACS is a primary or co-primary purpose of these devices.  Contrary to the 
assertions of some commenters,
87
using a browser to post information to a social media website (e.g.,
Facebook) is not evidence of ACS.  The Commission has previously found that ACS covered by the Act 
includes “more traditional, two-way interactive services such as text messaging, instant messaging, and 
electronic mail, rather than . . . blog posts, online publishing, or messages posted on social networking 
websites.”
88
23. We also consider “the extent to which the ACS functionality is advertised, announced, or 
marketed to consumers as a reason for purchasing, installing, downloading, or accessing the equipment or 
service.”
89
  Both the record in this proceeding
90
and an independent review of the manufacturer marketing 
materials for these devices support a finding that their primary purpose is for reading, rather than for 
ACS.  Information provided on the product listings for basic e-readers, such as the Kindle E-Reader and 
Kobo Aura HD, continue to focus primarily on ways to facilitate reading on these devices.
91
  Although, as 
                                                     
84
See Coalition Petition at 5; CEA Comments at 5; NFB and ACB Comments at 3-4; ARL and ALA Comments at 
3.  
85
E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 684-85, ¶ 17.
86
See id. at 683, ¶ 16 (footnotes omitted).  As discussed above, the Coalition emphasizes that even as multipurpose 
devices like tablets are increasing in functionality, basic e-readers remain optimized for reading text-based digital 
works, not for ACS.  See ¶ 10, supra; Coalition Petition at 7; Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 2.
87
See, e.g., See ARL and ALA Comments at 3; ARL and ALA Reply Comments at 2-3. See also ¶ 13, n.50, supra.
88
  ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14574, ¶ 43 (quoting Senate Report at 6; House Report at 23) (emphasis 
added).
89
E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 685, ¶ 18 (citing ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14635, ¶ 185; 
CEA/NCTA/ESA Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12987, ¶ 35).
90
See Coalition Petition at 4-5; Coalition Reply Comments at 3-4; Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 1-2. 
91
For example, the Amazon website states. “Unlike tablets, the Kindle Paperwhite is designed to deliver a superior 
reading experience.”  Amazon.com, Kindle Paperwhite, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JG8GOWU/ (last visited 
Dec. 11, 2014).  It also states, “Kindle Paperwhite is purposely designed as a dedicated e-reader.  Indulge your love 
of reading without interruptions like email alerts or push notifications.”  Amazon.com, Kindle Paperwhite,
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JG8GOWU/#readers (last visited Dec. 11, 2014).  In this regard, the website states 
the Kindle Paperwhite “reads like paper – no annoying glare, even in bright sunlight”; is “lighter than a paperback,” 
allowing users to “[c]omfortably hold [it] in one hand for long reading sessions”; contains a “built-in front light . . . 
so you can read comfortably without eyestrain”; and requires only a single charge for up to eight weeks “based on a 
half hour of reading per day.”  Id. at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JG8GOWU/#readers.  The website also lists 
features of the Kindle Paperwhite that go “beyond a book.”  Id. at 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JG8GOWU/#beyond (noting features such as looking up words and concepts in a 
dictionary or Wikipedia, learning about a book before beginning reading, displaying in-line footnotes,  displaying an 
estimate of remaining reading time, and translating book passages into another language).  The lists of features do 
not include any mention of ACS capabilities in the Kindle Paperwhite.  Id.  Similarly, the Kobo website states that 
the Kobo Aura HD offers “a completely immersive reading experience and the most paper-like E-ink display,” “a 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
12
noted by ARL and ALA, some advertisements for basic e-readers note the availability of a Webkit-based 
browser, the mention of such browsers does not equate to advertising the use of such browsers for ACS.
92
  
Rather, advertisements mentioning e-reader browsers generally refer to other web-based functions, such 
as connecting to an on-line bookstore or accessing Wikipedia.
93
  Moreover, although some websites 
suggest to potential purchasers that they can use their devices to share information about books with 
others, these references continue to appear focused primarily on the ability to post passages to social 
networks such as Facebook and Goodreads, rather than on having conversations about books.
94
  The lack 
of advertising and marketing about ACS further supports a finding that basic e-readers are not designed 
for ACS.
24. Finally, we consider the extent to which basic e-readers are used for ACS.  The Coalition 
acknowledges that some consumers may use basic e-readers to access ACS.
95
  However, the Coalition, in 
arguing against ACS as a primary or co-primary function of e-readers, points to industry data that shows 
that just over four percent of users launch their e-reader browsers for any purpose.
96
  In a similar study 
conducted by the Coalition in 2012 and 2013, the Coalition reported that approximately seven percent of 
users launched their e-reader browsers for any purpose.
97
Declining usage of the browser for any purpose, 
including ACS, weighs in favor of a finding that basic e-readers are not designed for the primary purpose 
of ACS.
98
  For all of the above reasons, we conclude that the current design, marketing, and general use of 
basic e-readers is for reading text-based digital works and that accessing ACS is not a primary or co-
primary purpose of basic e-readers at this time, but rather serves an incidental purpose on these devices.
99
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
breakthrough front-light that’s perfect for reading,” the ability to “[c]ustomize your reading experience” with a 
selection of font styles and sizes, the ability to “enjoy up to two months of uninterrupted reading on a single charge,” 
and “the complete print experience,” including “seamless” page turns and a device that “fits perfectly in your hand, 
just as a hardcover does.”  Kobo.com, Kobo Aura HD Overview, http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd (last visited 
Dec. 11, 2014).  
92
See ¶ 13, supra; ARL and ALA Comments at 3-5; ARL and ALA Reply Comments at 4.
93
See Amazon.com, Kindle Paperwhite, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JG8GOWU/ (last visited Dec. 11, 2014) 
(“Kindle Paperwhite's experimental web browser is based on WebKit.  It’s easy to find the information you’re 
looking for right from your Kindle Paperwhite.  Kindle Paperwhite enables you to connect to the Kindle Store and 
access Wikipedia, all over Wi-Fi.”).  See also Coalition Reply Comments at 3 (noting that the language cited by 
ARL and ALA makes no mention of ACS and “the two activities that it does mention (connection to the Kindle 
Store and access to Wikipedia) are two of the simple, non-ACS browsing activities”).
94
See Amazon.com, Kindle Paperwhite Touch Screen E-Reader with Light,
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JG8GOWU/#beyond (last visited Dec. 11, 2014) (noting the ability to access 
Goodreads to “see what your friends are reading, share highlights, rate the books you read”); Kobo.com, Kobo Aura 
HD Overview, http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd (last visited Dec. 11, 2014) (noting the ability to “share your . . . 
favourite [sic] passages and eBooks, to your Facebook timeline”).
95
See Coalition Reply Comments at 4 (stating that “the Coalition has never claimed that no consumers access ACS 
using the browsers installed on e-readers”).
96
See ¶ 10, supra; Coalition Petition at 5-6; Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 2. The Coalition argues that the 
number of consumers using the browser to access ACS is closer to 2.5 percent based on the amount of time the 
browser is used and the point from which the browser is accessed on the device.  See n.37, supra; Coalition Petition 
at 5-6.
97
See E-Reader Waiver Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 678, ¶ 8, n.42.
98
See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14635, ¶ 183 (market research and usage trends may be considered to 
determine whether the equipment is designed primarily for purposes other than ACS).
99
See Senate Report and 8; House Report at 26 (stating that “a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing 
advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, access to such services”).  The Coalition 
maintains that, in order to incorporate ACS accessibility into basic e-readers at this time, manufacturers would have 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
13
25. Additionally, we conclude that the Coalition has demonstrated good cause to extend the 
waiver of the rules for the class of basic e-readers and that, at this time, an extension of the waiver would 
not be inconsistent with the public interest.
100
  To begin with, we continue to recognize the Coalition’s 
concern regarding the preservation of basic e-readers as a niche product that is devoted to accessing text-
based digital works.
101
  The Coalition’s Petition emphasizes that Coalition members have chosen to 
design and market basic e-readers as products that serve the single purpose of reading, distinct from 
smartphones and tablets.
102
26. We also continue to recognize and acknowledge the critical purpose of the CVAA to 
ensure that Americans with disabilities have the capability to use ACS to communicate with others.
103
  As 
Congress explained, the benefits of modern communications technologies “have profoundly altered our 
everyday lives . . . allowing mobile access to the Internet and a diverse menu of applications and 
services.”
104
  Moreover, as Congress has stated, although many advances have improved the 
communications capabilities of the general public, “the extraordinary benefits of these technological 
advances are often still not accessible to individuals with disabilities.”
105
  We note, however, that since the 
Commission’s rules requiring accessible ACS and equipment used with ACS went into effect in October 
2013, there has been substantial growth in the availability of reasonably priced portable communication 
devices, including tablets and smartphones, as well as reading apps, that can be used with screen readers, 
and that also provide accessible ACS.
106
The availability of these newly accessible devices, together with 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
to make fundamental changes to the devices’ hardware and software that would erode the distinction between basic 
e-readers and tablets established by the Coalition. See Coalition Petition at 8-9; Coalition Reply Comments at 7.
We do not find it necessary to express a judgment about the feasibility of incorporating accessibility features into 
basic e-readers in this Order because we base our determination that a waiver is warranted on our conclusion that 
ACS is not a primary or co-primary purpose of basic e-readers.  For this reason, we also do not find it necessary to 
make a determination as to whether a waiver is necessary to preserve the basic e-reader as a niche product devoted 
to reading.  See Coalition Reply Comments at 7.
100
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.  See also ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14637, ¶ 188.
101
See E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 687, ¶ 20; Coalition Petition at 3.
102
Coalition Petition at 7, 8-9.  See also Coalition Reply Comments at 7 (asserting that, since multipurpose tablets 
have become more popular, the simplicity of the basic e-reader is necessary for it to remain a viable product); 
Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 1-2.  While we acknowledge the interest of the Coalition to continue offering 
basic e-readers as simplified devices, we do not, by this acknowledgement, find it necessary to make a determination 
as to whether adding accessibility features would interfere with the simplicity of basic e-readers, given that we have 
determined ACS is not a primary or co-primary purpose of these devices. 
103
See E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 686, ¶ 19.  
104
Senate Report at 1; House Report at 19.
105
Senate Report at 2; House Report at 19. 
106
See Coalition Petition at 11 (stating that readers who are blind or visually impaired have access to “tablets, 
smartphones, and e-reading apps with screen-reading capabilities”); Coalition Reply Comments at 5-6 (citing the 
availability of tablets and smartphones with prices comparable to basic e-readers); Coalition Dec. 12, 2014 Ex Parte 
at 2-3 (noting the “multiple accessible devices, including tablets and smartphones, that are available at many
different price points and are designed with ACS in mind,” the “free e-reading apps that allow readers to access 
publications available on e-readers on a wide variety of accessible platforms,” and recent efforts by Coalition 
members to “improve the accessibility of a number of their products and services”).  See also Implementation of 
Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications 
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. 10-213, Biennial Report to Congress as Required by the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 29 FCC Rcd 11909, 11932, ¶ 41 (CGB 
2014) (noting “extensive submissions illustrating a range of accessible devices, from feature phones to smartphones, 
for individuals with varying types of disabilities” and finding that “industry has made efforts to comply with the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
14
our determination that ACS is not currently a primary or co-primary purpose of basic e-readers – based in 
part on the scarce use of ACS on these devices to date – leads us to conclude that extending the waiver 
will not have a significant impact on the ability of consumers with disabilities to access ACS at this 
time.
107
  
27. We also remain particularly sensitive to the need for consumers who are blind or visually 
impaired to access text-based digital works and the consequent harm that the denial of such access can 
pose to students and library patrons with such disabilities.
108
  However, while we acknowledge that there 
may be some benefits to basic e-readers that cannot be duplicated by other devices,
109
the record shows 
that a selection of reasonably priced alternatives now exist to allow reading access on portable devices, 
further suggesting that the waiver extension would not be inconsistent with the public interest.
110
  We are 
persuaded that the decreasing prices on and the increased availability of these tablets and smartphones –
many of which have been introduced into the market since the issuance of the initial waiver – lessens the 
negative impact on consumers who are unable to access reading features on basic e-readers.
111
  
B. Duration of Waiver 
28. The Coalition urges the Commission to grant an ongoing waiver for the class of basic e-
readers, because it claims that the narrow definition of the class “‘bakes in’ limitations that ensure that 
devices that should be within the scope of regulation are within the scope of regulation.”
112
  According to 
the Coalition, the record demonstrates that the class definition “is sufficiently narrow to avoid creating 
any ‘loopholes’” in the category of devices covered by the waiver.
113
  In contrast, commenters opposing 
the Coalition Petition ask that the waiver be limited to a defined time period, if granted.
114
  We remain 
concerned that a lengthy or permanent waiver might negatively impact the ability of consumers with 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
CVAA’s requirements to ensure that advanced communications services and the equipment used for these services 
are accessible to people with disabilities”).
107
See E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 687, ¶ 19.
108
See id. at 686-87, ¶ 19.  See also McKinney Comments at 1; McCabe Comments at 1; Rothman Ex Parte at 2, 3-
5. 
109
See NFB and ACB Comments at 4 (stating that blind consumers may wish to access ACS on basic e-readers not 
only because of their price, but also because of the simplicity of the device); NFB and AHEAD Ex Parte at 2 
(stating that schools and libraries may not want to purchase tablets because they “have more advanced functionality 
than schools and libraries are looking for”).
110
We reject the Coalition’s assertion that the Bureau should not consider the accessibility of reading features of 
text-based digital works in determining whether a waiver would serve the public interest.  Coalition Petition at 12.  
Although access to the reading features of text-based digital works on these devices falls outside the CVAA’s ACS 
accessibility mandates, the Commission’s general waiver standard, which requires good cause to waive the rules and 
a showing that the particular facts of the petition make compliance with the relevant requirements inconsistent with 
the public interest, requires the Bureau to consider the broader implications of the waiver to determine its impact on 
the public interest.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.   
111
Coalition Reply Comments at 5-6; Coalition Nov. 17, 2014 Ex Parte at 2-3.  An independent review of the 
manufacturer marketing materials shows that Amazon line of Fire Tablets are priced at $99, $139, $179, and $379.  
See Amazon.com, Fire HD 6, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KC6I06S#firetablet-compare (last visited Jan. 8, 
2015).  In contrast, the Kindle e-readers are priced at $79, $119, $199.  See Amazon.com, Kindle Paperwhite, 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JG8GOWU/#kindle-compare (last visited Jan. 8, 2015).
112
Coalition Petition at 12.
113
Id. at 12-13.
114
See ARL and ALA Comments at 9 (urging that if the waiver is granted, it “be granted on the basis that the 
Commission will review the situation after a certain period of time passes in order to ensure that the Coalition has 
not substantially changed the e-readers to include even more functions that implicitly include ACS capability”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
15
disabilities to access ACS in the future.  As explained below, we therefore limit the duration of this 
waiver extension to one year.
29. We agree with ARL and ALA that e-readers are “a rapidly changing area of 
technology,”
115
and that “the way in which the public uses technology also changes rapidly over time.”
116
  
Consequently, it remains difficult to predict the extent to which e-readers that currently fall into the 
protected class will evolve to include ACS as a primary or co-primary purpose.
117
  We do not agree with
the Coalition that the class definition necessarily excludes those devices that should be in compliance 
with the ACS rules. The e-readers covered in the class definition maintain the capability to access ACS, 
even if ACS is not currently the primary or co-primary purpose of these devices.  As such, it is possible 
that e-readers that fall within the class definition could include greater ACS capabilities in the future, that 
consumer use of the ACS capabilities on these devices could increase, and that ACS could become a co-
primary purpose.  As we noted in the E-Reader Waiver Order, “if ACS features on the next generation of 
these devices are featured more prominently and, for example, begin to be utilized regularly in education, 
employment, and as a tool of social integration, it is conceivable that mobile communication in the online 
e-reader environment may become a co-primary purpose of basic e-reader devices.”
118
  Moreover, the 
extent to which new accessibility solutions for ACS will be developed to facilitate the inclusion of 
accessibility features on basic e-readers while allowing them to maintain their simplicity remains difficult 
to predict.
119
  Given our continued concern about the harm to consumers with disabilities that might result 
from the denial of access to ACS should ACS develop into a co-primary function on these devices, we 
find that extending the waiver for basic e-readers on an ongoing basis would be contrary to the public 
interest.
120
30. In defining the waiver period for the class of basic e-readers, we consider “evidence on 
the record, including the lifecycle of the equipment or service in the class.”
121
  In granting the initial 
waiver, the Bureau found that the lifecycle of the class of basic e-readers – the time it takes for the 
product to be developed and initially introduced in the market – is one year.
122
  The Coalition’s Petition 
does not address the lifecycle of the class of basic e-readers, and there is no evidence in the record to 
cause us to reconsider our previous conclusion that the lifecycle of these products is one year.  Moreover, 
Coalition members have continued to release new generations of e-readers every year since 2010.
123
We
believe that the spacing of these product releases provides useful guidance with respect to the time it takes 
for a basic e-reader to be developed and introduced in the market.
124
  We therefore find that the lifecycle 
                                                     
115
Id.  See also E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 689, ¶ 23 (stating that “[s]ince their introduction into the 
marketplace about six years ago and even very recently, e-readers have evolved at a rapid pace, becoming sleeker, 
lighter, easier to read, and less expensive with larger capacities and wireless capabilities”).
116
ARL and ALA Comments at 9.  See also E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 689, ¶ 23 (noting the 
“expanding importance of ACS technologies in the daily lives of all Americans”).
117
See E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 690, ¶ 24.
118
Id. at 689-90, ¶ 24 (footnotes omitted).
119
See id. at 689, ¶ 23.
120
See id. at 690, ¶ 24 (citing CEA/NCTA/ESA Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12989-90, ¶ 38).
121
47 C.F.R. § 14.5(c)(2).
122
E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 691, ¶ 25.
123
See id. at 690-91, ¶ 25.  See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle (last visited Jan. 23, 2015) 
(detailing Amazon releases of new generation Kindles on an annual basis); 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobo_eReader (last visited Jan. 23, 2015) (detailing Kobo releases of e-readers on an 
annual basis).
124
See E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 691, ¶ 25.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-117
16
of the class of basic e-readers is one year and, accordingly, grant a one-year extension of the waiver.  We 
believe that limiting the waiver extension period to one year will serve the public interest by balancing the 
interest of the Coalition’s members in preserving a unique product and the interest of consumers with 
disabilities to access ACS in the event that basic e-readers come to include ACS as a co-primary purpose.
31. As with the initial waiver,
125
during the waiver period, we will not require manufacturers 
of equipment covered by the waiver to comply with the obligations of section 14.20, the performance 
objectives of section 14.21, and the recordkeeping obligations of section 14.31 of the Commission’s 
rules.
126
  However, to the extent that future generations of e-readers evolve to provide ACS as one of their 
primary functions, we expect manufacturers of basic e-readers to consider accessible design early during 
the development stages of such products, so that accessible features can be incorporated when the class 
waiver expires on January 28, 2016.
127
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
32. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 
4(j) and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j) and 617, and 
sections 0.361, 1.3 and 14.5 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.361, 1.3 and 14.5, this Order IS 
ADOPTED.
33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Coalition Petition IS GRANTED to the extent 
discussed above and IS OTHERWISE DENIED.
34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
35. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Acting Chief
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
                                                     
125
See id. at 691, ¶ 26.
126
47 C.F.R. §§ 14.20, 14.21, 14.31.  The waiver of these rules also includes a waiver of the obligation to conduct 
an achievability analysis for the waived products during the period of the waiver.  See ACS Report and Order, 27 
FCC Rcd at 14607-19, ¶¶ 119-48.  See also CEA/NCTA/ESA Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12976-77, 12980, 
12988-89, ¶¶ 11, 19, 36; E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 691, ¶ 26, n.136.
127
In other words, we continue to expect an e-reader manufacturer to conduct accessibility planning as early as 
possible during the design process (including achievability analysis, as necessary) during the period of the extension 
of the class waiver for models that the manufacturer plans to introduce after January 28, 2016, as these models 
would not be subject to the waiver.  E-Reader Waiver Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 691, ¶ 26, n.137 (citing ACS Report 
and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14602, 14609, ¶¶ 108, 124).  We also continue to recognize, however, that the 
achievability analysis conducted for products and services already under development at the time when the class 
waiver expires may take into consideration the developmental stage of those products or services and the effort and 
expense needed to achieve accessibility at that point in their development.  Id. (citing ACS Report and Order, 26 
FCC Rcd at 14640, ¶ 194; 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(c)(2)).