Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind 
Individuals
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CG Docket No. 10-210
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted:  August 4, 2016 Released:  August 5, 2016
By the Commission:  Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, and Pai issuing
separate statements; Commissioner O’Rielly approving in part and concurring in part.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. 2
III. PROGRAM STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................... 6
A. Geographic-Based Program Certification........................................................................................ 6
B. Permanent Program Certification .................................................................................................. 12
C. Certification Selection Criteria ...................................................................................................... 17
D. Duration of Certification................................................................................................................ 28
E. Certification Renewals................................................................................................................... 31
F. Obligations of Certified Entities .................................................................................................... 33
G. Relinquishing Program Certification ............................................................................................. 35
H. Suspension or Revocation of Certification .................................................................................... 38
I. Obligations of Outgoing Entities ................................................................................................... 44
J. Implementation of the Permanent NDBEDP and Termination of the Pilot Program.................... 51
IV. CONSUMER ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................................... 53
A. Definition of Individuals who are Deaf-Blind ............................................................................... 54
B. Verification that an Individual is Deaf-Blind ................................................................................ 58
C. Income Eligibility .......................................................................................................................... 64
D. Calculation of Income.................................................................................................................... 69
E. Verification of Income Eligibility.................................................................................................. 75
F. Other Eligibility Requirements and Considerations ...................................................................... 80
V. EQUIPMENT AND RELATED SERVICES ...................................................................................... 84
A. Equipment...................................................................................................................................... 84
B. Assessments ................................................................................................................................. 106
C. Installation and Training .............................................................................................................. 109
D. Center-Based Assessments and Training..................................................................................... 112
E. Training Trainers ......................................................................................................................... 118
F. Outreach....................................................................................................................................... 131
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
2
1. National Outreach.................................................................................................................. 131
2. Local Outreach ...................................................................................................................... 140
VI. FUNDING.......................................................................................................................................... 148
A. Allocation of Funding.................................................................................................................. 148
B. Reimbursement Mechanism......................................................................................................... 156
C. Claim Frequency and Payment Processing.................................................................................. 158
D. Documentation of Reimbursement Claims .................................................................................. 160
E. Administrative Costs.................................................................................................................... 162
VII. PROGRAM OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING ......................................................................... 166
A. Overview...................................................................................................................................... 166
B. Program Oversight Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 170
C. Performance Goals and Measures................................................................................................ 173
D. Reporting Requirements .............................................................................................................. 179
E. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement ........................................... 187
1. Need for Centralized Database.............................................................................................. 187
2. Use of the Centralized Database for Reimbursement Claims ............................................... 191
3. Inclusion and Protection of Personally Identifiable Information in the Centralized 
Database ................................................................................................................................ 194
4. Access to Other Programs’ Data and Aggregate Data .......................................................... 199
5. Database Administration ....................................................................................................... 201
F. Audits and Record Retention ....................................................................................................... 203
G. Whistleblower Protections ........................................................................................................... 209
H. Complaints ................................................................................................................................... 211
VIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ....................................................................................................... 213
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act ........................................................................................................... 213
B. Paperwork Reduction Act ............................................................................................................ 214
C. Congressional Review Act........................................................................................................... 215
D. Materials in Accessible Formats .................................................................................................. 216
IX. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 217
Appendix A – List of Commenters
Appendix B – NDBEDP Pilot Program Certified Entities
Appendix C – Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures
Appendix D – Final Rules
Appendix E – Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Report and Order (Order), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) adopts rules to convert the pilot National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program 
(NDBEDP) into a permanent program.  Under the NDBEDP, also known as “iCanConnect,” the 
Commission may provide up to $10 million annually to support local programs that distribute equipment 
to eligible low-income individuals who are deaf-blind, so that these individuals are able to access 
telecommunications service, Internet access service, and advanced communications services.  The rules 
adopted in this Order reflect the experience and knowledge gained from the Commission during the four 
years it has operated the NDBEDP as a pilot program.  The critical need for this program is evidenced by 
the life-altering benefits it has brought to thousands of eligible individuals who are deaf-blind.
1
  For these 
individuals, the NDBEDP has enhanced social interaction, ended isolation and dependence, and opened 
new opportunities for full integration into society.  The action we take in this Order is the next step in the 
                                                     
1
See infra Appendix C (Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures) (providing information about the number of 
individuals served, a summary of program costs by category of expenses, and the per person cost averages during 
the first three years of the pilot program (2012 to 2015)). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
3
Commission’s ongoing efforts to break down accessibility barriers for this population, and will give these 
individuals the communication tools they need to connect with friends, relatives, and the community; 
access health-related information and emergency services; acquire information to become self-sufficient; 
and obtain skills and training to become gainfully employed. 
II. BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) 
directed the Commission to promulgate rules allowing the disbursement of up to $10 million annually 
from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund) to support programs that 
distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.
2
  Since July 2012, 
the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) has implemented the 
NDBEDP pilot program by certifying and overseeing 53 entities that distribute equipment in each state, 
plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
3
  Also since 2012, a national 
outreach coordinator, selected by the Bureau, has provided extensive outreach to support the distribution 
efforts of these state programs.
4
  
3. On August 1, 2014, the Bureau released a Public Notice inviting comment on issues 
related to establishing a permanent NDBEDP, including whether the program should be modified to make 
it more effective and more efficient.
5
  Based on comments received, we adopted a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking seeking comment on specific requirements for the creation of a permanent NDBEDP, 
including its program structure, eligibility requirements, covered equipment and services, funding 
                                                     
2
Pub. L. No. 111-260, § 105, 124 Stat. 2751, 2762 (2010); Pub. L. No. 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010) (making 
technical corrections to the CVAA).  Section 105 of the CVAA adds section 719 to the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (the Act), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 620 (“…the Commission shall establish rules that define as 
eligible for relay service support those programs that are approved by the Commission for the distribution of 
specialized customer premises equipment designed to make telecommunications service, Internet access service, and 
advanced communications, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information 
services, accessible by low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.”).  47 U.S.C. § 620(a).
3
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, 26 FCC Rcd 5640, 5649-50, para. 22 (2011) 
(NDBEDP Pilot Program Order); see also 47 CFR § 64.610 (NDBEDP pilot program rules); Commission 
Announces Entities Certified to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, Public 
Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 7397 (CGB 2012) (NDBEDP Pilot Program Certification Public Notice); Commission 
Announces Launch of the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 7403 
(CGB 2012).  The Commission originally established the NDBEDP as a two-year pilot program, with an option to 
extend the pilot for an additional year.  See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5685, para. 105.  On 
February 7, 2014, the Bureau extended the pilot program for a third year, until June 30, 2015.  Implementation of the 
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-
Blind Individuals, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 1234 (CGB 2014) (NDBEDP Pilot Program Third Year Order).  The pilot 
program was subsequently extended two additional times, first until June 30, 2016, and a second time until June 30, 
2017.  See Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of  2010, Section 
105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5247 (2015); Implementation of the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, 
Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6149 (2016) (2016 Extension Order).  Reference to “state programs” or “certified programs” in 
this Order refers collectively to all of the jurisdictions that participate in the NDBEDP.
4
See Perkins School for the Blind to Conduct National Outreach for the National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6143 (CGB 2012).  In addition, during the pilot program, the 
Bureau has released guidance to assist state programs with how to comply with the Commission’s NDBEDP rules.  
See, e.g., CGB, NDBEDP Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedpfaq/c1nlj (last visited 
July 18, 2016) (NDBEDP FAQ).
5
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution 
Program, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 9451 (CGB 2014) (Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
4
allocations, reporting, and other considerations.
6
  We also proposed performance goals for the NDBEDP, 
and sought comment on performance measures to be linked to each goal.
7
  
4. The iCanConnect website, administered by the NDBEDP outreach coordinator, 
chronicles the extraordinary benefits brought to the thousands of consumers who have received 
equipment under this program.
8
  For example, a 10-year-old child in New Jersey reports that his new 
equipment “makes me feel like everybody else.”
9
  A woman in Delaware reports that the NDBEDP has 
“opened doors” for her, enabling her to pursue her dream to become certified to teach Braille through a 
nonprofit distance learning school.
10
  A man in Indiana boasts that he was able to finally reconnect with 
his family after decades, helping to eliminate the extreme social isolation he endured prior to getting his 
NDBEDP equipment.
11
5. The rules adopted in this order 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.
12
  Through these rules, we recognize 
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 such needs may be further affected by other circumstances in their 
lives.  Accordingly, the rules adopted herein incorporate flexibility for the certified programs 
implementing them, so that each program can best achieve Congress’s goals of bringing 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.  To this end, we adopt rules that:
? Maintain the program structure used in the NDBEDP pilot program to certify one entity 
per state or territory to receive support from the TRS Fund for the distribution of 
                                                     
6
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, 30 FCC Rcd 5255 (2015) (NDBEDP 
2015 NPRM).
7
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5258, para. 6 & n.11 (citing U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO), Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (1996) (GAO 
GPRA Guide), http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gg96118.pdf; GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-
352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011) (GPRAMA)).
8
See iCanConnect, News, http://www.icanconnect.org/news (last visited July 15, 2016). This is a public information 
website.
9
iCanConnect, News (Mar. 16, 2016), http://www.icanconnect.org/news/ten-year-old-usher-syndrome-connects-
friends-and-family-through-icanconnect.
10
iCanConnect, News (Jan. 19, 2016), http://www.icanconnect.org/news/delaware-woman-pursues-her-dream-
teach-others-through-icanconnect.  
11
iCanConnect, News (May 27, 2015), http://www.icanconnect.org/news/thanks-icanconnect-indiana-man-
reconnects-loved-ones-after-decades.
12
We note that at present, there are no reliable figures for the number of deaf-blind Americans.  This is largely 
because the concept of deaf-blindness stretches across a wide continuum, depending on the severity of the loss of 
visual acuity and hearing.  Estimates range from 45,000 to over 700,000.  See, e.g., Gallaudet University Library, 
American Deaf-Blind Population, http://libguides.gallaudet.edu/content.php?pid=119476&sid=1029203 (last visited 
July 15, 2016); American Association of the Deaf-Blind (AADB), Frequently Asked Questions About Deaf-
Blindness, http://www.aadb.org/FAQ/faq_DeafBlindness.html (last updated Feb. 11, 2009); see also Georgia 
Council for the Hearing Impaired (GACHI) Comments at 22 (ascertaining the actual number of individuals who are 
deaf-blind can be problematic because a “large number” of deaf-blind individuals “do not identify themselves on a 
national database or level” and “many hard of hearing/low vision consumers . . . do not identify themselves as deaf-
blind”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
5
equipment and provision of related services, while expanding the certified entities to 
include three additional U.S. territories for a total of 56 certified programs.
13
? Govern grants of program certification and the obligations of certified entities.
? Define eligibility and verification requirements for NDBEDP equipment recipients.
? Define the equipment and related services (such as assessment and training of equipment 
recipients) eligible for reimbursement to certified programs.
? Allow limited reimbursement of program expenditures for training personnel to provide 
training to equipment recipients.
? Permit reimbursement of reasonable expenditures for travel by program personnel or 
equipment recipients as necessary to fulfill the goals of the program.
? Continue support for national outreach at a reduced level, as a supplement to individual 
programs’ local outreach efforts, to inform potential equipment recipients about the 
NDBEDP.
? Provide for the allocation and permit the reallocation of NDBEDP funding among 
certified programs to ensure the most effective use of available funds.
? To ensure effective oversight of the NDBEDP and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, 
require programs to provide detailed documentation of reimbursement claims, submit 
semiannual reports to the Commission, retain records documenting their compliance with 
program rules, undergo annual independent audits, and cooperate with Commission 
audits and investigations.
? Establish reimbursement limits for each certified program’s administrative costs.  
? Establish performance goals and direct the development of performance measures for the 
NDBEDP.
? Direct the establishment of a centralized database, to be required for program reporting 
and permitted for reimbursement claims, to facilitate effective oversight and reduce 
administrative burdens. 
III. PROGRAM STRUCTURE
A. Geographic-Based Program Certification 
6. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission delegated authority to the Bureau to 
certify one entity for each state, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, to 
receive funding for the administration of the program, distribution of equipment, and provision of related 
services to eligible residents of that state.
14
  The Bureau invited applications from entities interested in 
being certified and announced the selected applicants when it launched the pilot program in July 2012.
15
  
These 53 certified programs have been permitted to fulfill their oversight and program compliance 
obligations directly or through collaboration, partnership, or contract with other individuals or entities in-
                                                     
13
A single entity, however, may be certified to serve more than one state or territory.  See infra para. 11, note 80.
14
47 CFR § 64.610(b); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5647, para. 13 & n.44.
15
FCC Announces 60-Day Period to Apply for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 13118 (CGB 2011) (Pilot Program Applications Public Notice); 
NDBEDP Pilot Program Certification Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 7400-7402. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
6
state or out-of-state.
16
  Each certified program has been responsible for engaging in local outreach, 
conducting individualized communication assessments, distributing and installing equipment, and 
providing training on how to use the equipment.
17
  Each certified program also has been responsible for 
various administrative functions associated with the NDBEDP, including the submission of 
reimbursement claims,
18
the fulfillment of reporting obligations,
19
and the performance of annual audits.
20
7. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on our proposal to retain the pilot 
program structure for the permanent NDBEDP, and asked specifically whether we should continue to 
certify one entity within each of the states and territories, rather than a single entity or multistate regional 
programs.
21
  We stated our belief, based on the comments we received in response to the Permanent 
NDBEDP Public Notice and our experience with the pilot program, that the localized approach has been 
successful in meeting the needs of eligible low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.
22
  Specifically, we 
suggested that state-based entities were more likely to be familiar with the unique demographics and 
available resources of their states, and consequently would be in a better position to respond to the 
localized needs of their residents.
23
8. After careful consideration of the record, we adopt 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.  Nearly all 
commenters to the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM support retaining the state-based structure, noting its ability to 
meet local needs and knowledge of local resources.
24
  We agree that local programs, including both in-
state entities and out-of-state entities that work with in-state partners or otherwise have the local expertise 
to provide services, appear to have won the trust and support of consumers within the communities that 
they serve,
25
and we note that commenters commend the existing structure for its “personalization of 
                                                     
16
See 47 CFR § 64.610(b); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5647, para. 13.  Such collaboration may 
be necessary, for example, to ensure that program personnel have the expertise needed to conduct assessments and 
provide training.  NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5647, para. 13.
17
See 47 CFR § 64.610(e); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5664-65, 5670-71, 5668, 5675, paras. 
55-56, 65, 69, 79.
18
47 CFR § 64.610(f); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5679, para. 88.  
19
47 CFR § 64.610(g); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5683-84, paras. 98-99.  
20
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(vii); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5684, para. 101.
21
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5260-61, para. 9.
22
Id. at 5260, para. 9.
23
Id. 
24
See, e.g., Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP) Comments at 1 (noting efficiencies created 
by using state and local resources); Center for Deaf Blind Persons, Inc. (CDBP) Comments at 1-2; GACHI 
Comments at 1 (noting that states often have dissimilar needs); Interagency Program for Assistive Technology 
(IPAT) Comments at 1 (by “keeping it local, end-users have a cadre of support they can readily access”); 
LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired (LightHouse) Comments at 1-2 (a centralized program might not 
reach as many recipients as state-based entities); Perkins School for the Blind (Perkins) Comments at 4 (asserting 
that “consumers are best served by in-state resources when possible”); Seattle Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle 
Lighthouse) Comments at 2 (noting that the cost efficiencies of a national program are offset by “significant impacts 
on quality as well as barriers to participation and employment of DeafBlind people in these entities,” and “costly 
redundant layers of administrative tasks”).  Although the International Deaf Blind Institution (IDBI) states that it 
“prefers a single entity nationwide program structure,” it also raises concerns about centralizing the NDBEDP, and 
concludes that the current state-based structure “may be the best route.”  IDBI Comments at 4-5; see also AADB 
Comments at 2. 
25
See GACHI Comments at 1 (asserting that “trust is an integral factor in working with the deaf-blind consumers” 
and that “consumers have a relationship of trust” with their local programs, and raising the concern that “centralized 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
7
services, immediacy of response,” and accountability.
26
  We further agree that state-based programs are 
able to “integrate with and leverage in-state services, provide easy access for consumers, and possess 
knowledge of ‘on-the-ground’ circumstances unique to each state.”
27
  Finally, we are persuaded that if the 
Commission adopts a single entity nationwide program structure, this could result in a loss of expertise 
gained by established certified entities and disruption to consumers.
28
9. For all of these reasons, and based on our experience with the pilot program, we conclude 
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, we direct 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.
10. Expansion to Additional U.S. Territories.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed
that NDBEDP funding be extended to the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 
Mariana Islands.
29
  We noted that, just like the 53 states and territories covered by the pilot program,
30
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.
31
  
11. In light of the demonstrated need and record support for this proposal,
32
we extend the 
NDBEDP to these territories.  While we direct the Bureau to certify one entity for each of these 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
programs would be treated more as a business without the compassion needed” to serve deaf-blind consumers); 
Access Technologies, Inc. (ATI) Comments at 1.  See also Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 2 (noting that 
“[c]urrently, there are no national programs serving DeafBlind people that have the unqualified support and trust of 
DeafBlind leaders, parents, organizations and individuals”). 
26
LightHouse Comments at 1-2.
27
IDBI Comments at 5 (approving the current state-based structure); see also GACHI Comments at 1 (noting that 
the NDBEDP has “a positive rippling effect” on individuals to achieve “independence through other state supportive 
services”); IPAT Comments at 1 (stating that the certifying entity and other state partners “share knowledge, and 
together build a service delivery system within the state”); Perkins Comments at 4 (noting that its ability to partner 
with in-state resources has encouraged local partnerships and enabled the fulfillment of program requirements that 
otherwise would be prohibitive); LightHouse Comments at 1 (housing the NDBEDP within the state exposes other
branches of local and state governments to deaf-blind issues).
28
IDBI Comments at 5.
29
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5262-63, para. 12.
30
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5647, n.44.  
31
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5262-63, para. 12 & n.49.  The TRS Fund receives contributions from 
common carriers and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service providers to support a variety of relay services 
designed to facilitate telephone communication by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, and speech-
disabled.  See 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).  
32
See, e.g., Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (CNMI OVR) 
Comments at 1 (reporting that residents of the Pacific Islands have “a high rate of diabetes that can impact one’s 
vision and other sensory organs” and adding that participation in the NDBEDP will “help to improve 
communication and other activities of daily living to increase meaningful independence” among this population); 
Helen Keller National Center (HKNC) Comments at 2-3 (referencing the statement of Si Ben S. Servino, Director of 
the Department of Integrated Services for Individuals with Disabilities (DISID) in Guam, who notes that DISID 
fully supports the proposal to bring technology to deaf-blind residents of Guam); IDBI Comments at 6; Mellanie Lee 
Comments at 1 (reporting that she knows families who live in these U.S. Territories who could benefit from the 
NDBEDP).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
8
territories,
33
a single entity may apply for certification to serve the residents of one, two, or all three of 
these jurisdictions.
34
  We note that given the relatively small funding allocations and uniquely small 
populations of these remote jurisdictions located in the South Pacific region,
35
certifying the same entity 
to serve all three jurisdictions may enable the consolidation of administrative functions, as well as 
coordination and conservation of resources.
B. Permanent Program Certification
12. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed that 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 within 30 days after the effective date of the final rules.
36
  We also proposed to 
permit other entities to apply for certification during the 30-day period following the effective date of the 
final rules.
37
13. Some parties support extending an invitation to new entities to apply for certification as a 
means of expanding the number of in-state certified entities.
38
  Other commenters support requiring 
currently certified entities to reapply for certification or notify the Commission of their intent to cease 
their participation in the NDBEDP.
39
  Still other commenters assert that requiring recertification of such 
entities may cause a disruption of services.
40
  A few of these parties recommend that the Commission 
instead evaluate the extent to which a currently certified entity is meeting the Commission’s existing 
criteria and, if such entity is in full compliance, only direct that it describe how it will meet any new 
criteria or requirements for the permanent program.
41
  GACHI argues that such programs be allowed to 
continue under the permanent NDBEDP without having to apply for and be recertified.
42
  Similarly, 
HKNC “believes that current state entities have proven their ability to meet the needs of the program,” but 
it does not object to requiring such entities to supply “current financial reports/audit reports to prove 
continuing criteria compliance.”
43
                                                     
33
See supra para. 9.
34
See Perkins Comments at 7 (asking the Commission to consider whether three certified entities would be needed 
to serve these jurisdictions, given their relatively small populations and funding allocations).  
35
See infra para. 149 & note 449.
36
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5267, para. 23.
37
Id.
38
See LightHouse Comments at 2; IDBI Comments at 9; Perkins Comments at 11.  But see HKNC Comments at 4 
(suggesting that the Commission wait until the end of the first five-year certification period to open up the 
certification process to additional entities, because at that point, it believes that “an in-state entity may be a better 
choice and better able to serve its residents than some of the current programs that are being served by out-of-state 
entities.”).  At present, 20 states are served by out-of-state entities.  See infra para. 25. 
39
See Communication Axess Ability Group d/b/a/ StarVRS (CAAG) Comments at 4-5; CDBP Comments at 2; 
IDBI Comments at 9; Perkins Comments at 11; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 4.
40
See ATAP Comments at 2; HKNC Comments at 3; Missouri Assistive Technology (MoAT) Comments at 1-2.
41
See ATAP Comments at 2; ATI Comments at 2; Assistive Technology for Kansans (ATK) Comments at 2; ATLA 
Comments at 2; Institute on Disabilities at Temple University (IOD) Comments at 2; IPAT Comments at 2; 
LightHouse Comments at 3; MoAT Comments at 1-2; Washington Assistive Technology Act Program (WATAP) 
Comments at 2.  IPAT, the certified entity for North Dakota, states further that “North Dakota would find having to 
reapply burdensome.”  IPAT Comments at 2.
42
GACHI Comments at 8.  Instead, GACHI suggests that entities that are not satisfying program criteria “should be 
placed on a probationary period for six months to one year with the warning that they may lose certification if 
certain guidelines or criteria are not met with consistency.”  Id. at 8.  
43
HKNC Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
9
14. We believe 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 certification.  While we acknowledge that the 
experience gained by entities certified under the pilot program may weigh in favor of their recertification, 
we are 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 we now amend some of the rules that will apply to 
these programs,
44
we believe it is necessary and appropriate to open up the application process to both 
new and currently certified entities.  We further conclude that our 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, we 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 our certification criteria, and to affirm its commitment to 
comply with all Commission rules governing the permanent program.
45
  In reviewing each application, 
we will consider, among other things, the extent to which the entity has effectively implemented the 
program and achieved compliance with our rules.  We believe that considerations of equity and fairness 
require us to adopt this approach, as it will allow us to compare and contrast the qualifications of multiple 
applicants based on our current selection criteria and NDBEDP requirements.  
15. To ensure sufficient time is provided for the application process, we require 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.
46
  Although some 
commenters support the 30-day proposal contained in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM,
47
we agree with CDBP 
that “many of the certified entities may be part of state government and have procedural requirements and 
approvals that demand a longer timeframe.”
48
  A 60-day application period also is consistent with the 
period used for the NDBEDP pilot program.
49
  In addition, we require 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 this Order.
50
  
16. We direct the Bureau to announce the timing of this 60-day period by public notice.  We 
also direct 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,
51
as well as identify those jurisdictions, if any, where no entity has applied for 
                                                     
44
See, e.g., infra paras. 22-24, (adding certification criteria related to administrative and financial management 
experience, as well as requirements related to improper incentives and conflicts of interest).
45
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5267, para. 23.  An entity seeking certification for the first time also 
must submit an application with sufficient detail to demonstrate its ability to meet all of our 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.  Id. at 5267, para. 25. 
46
The certification rules will become effective on the date specified in a notice published in the Federal Register
announcing approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the information collection requirements of 
such rules under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).  See Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995); 44 
U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520.
47
CAAG Comments at 4-5; IDBI Comments at 9; Perkins Comments at 11.
48
CDBP Comments at 2-3. 
49
Pilot Program Applications Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd at 13118.
50
See infra Part III.I (Obligations of Outgoing Entities).
51
See Perkins Comments at 12 (asking the Commission to consider how state programs should be notified if a 
competing bid for certification is submitted).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
10
certification under the permanent program.
52
  We further direct 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.  
C. Certification Selection Criteria
17. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, certification has been based on the ability of a 
program to meet the following qualifications, either directly or in coordination with other programs or 
entities, as evidenced in the application and any supplemental materials, including letters of 
recommendation, submitted by the applicant:
(i) Expertise in the field of deaf-blindness, including familiarity with the culture and etiquette of 
people who are deaf-blind,
53
to ensure that equipment distribution and the provision of related 
services occurs in a manner that is relevant and useful to consumers who are deaf-blind;
(ii) The ability to communicate effectively with people who are deaf-blind (for training and other 
purposes), by among other things, using sign language, providing materials in Braille, ensuring 
that information made available online is accessible, and using other assistive technologies and 
methods to achieve effective communication;
(iii) Staffing and facilities sufficient to administer the program, including the ability to distribute 
equipment and provide related services to eligible individuals throughout the state, including 
those in remote areas;
(iv) Experience with the distribution of specialized customer premises equipment, especially to 
people who are deaf-blind;
(v) Experience in how to use the equipment and how to set up the equipment for its effective use; 
and
(vi) Familiarity with the telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications 
services that will be used with the distributed equipment.
54
18. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to retain these criteria for the permanent 
NDBEDP, while seeking comment on several proposals to improve the process for evaluating 
certification applications.
55
  First, we sought comment on how we could supplement the certification 
criteria to better ensure that program personnel in the permanent NDBEDP are able to serve the full 
spectrum of low-income individuals who are deaf-blind, such as by establishing minimum linguistic 
competency levels for program personnel.
56
  Second, we proposed to add administrative and financial 
                                                     
52
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.
53
We agree with commenters about the importance of ensuring that programs and program staff are qualified to 
meet the diverse needs of the full spectrum of people who are deaf-blind.  See, e.g., Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 
3-4; see also NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5264, para. 15 & nn.59-60 (citing concerns that certain 
programs and program staff lack a good working knowledge about the language and communication needs of the 
deaf-blind community).  We define the phrase “expertise in the field of deaf-blindness, including familiarity with the 
culture and etiquette of people who are deaf-blind” to include expertise regarding the language and communication 
needs of individuals who are deaf-blind.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5264-65, paras. 15-16.
54
47 CFR § 64.610(b)(3); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5648-49, paras. 15-20.
55
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5263-64, para. 14.
56
Id. at 5264-65, para. 16.  This inquiry was made to address concerns raised by parties in response to the 
Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice that some certified programs lack personnel sufficiently qualified to meet the 
diverse needs of the full spectrum of people who are deaf-blind, in that this community is comprised of individuals 
who use different modes of communication and have different levels of residual hearing, sight, and speech, varying 
degrees of experience with technology, and different learning styles and abilities.  See id. at 5264-65, paras. 15-16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
11
management experience to the requirements for certification, and asked whether this would reduce the 
likelihood that selected entities would relinquish their certification before completion of their terms.
57
  
Third, we proposed to require applicants for certification to disclose actual or potential conflicts of 
interest with equipment manufacturers or providers, and further proposed to reject applicants for 
certification when such financial arrangements create the risk of impeding their objectivity or compliance 
with NDBEDP requirements.
58
  Finally, we proposed to continue allowing both in-state and out-of-state 
entities to apply for certification to administer and operate any NDBEDP state program.
59
19. We will continue to use the certification criteria established for the pilot program in the 
permanent NDBEDP.  Commenters generally support the continued use of these criteria,
60
and, based on 
our experience with the pilot program, we believe that the expertise and experience these criteria require 
have been effective.
61
  As further detailed below, we decline to establish minimum standards for program 
personnel, as we believe that our 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. 
20. 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.
62
  This population also uses a wide variety of communication technologies, 
including, but not limited to, refreshable Braille displays, print magnifiers, and screen readers.
63
  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.
64
  We conclude, 
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.
65
  
21. We agree that so long as entities have “[a]ccess to staff or independent consultants with 
superior adaptive technology and communication skills, strong interpersonal skills and who embrace self-
management . . . [and] who comprise a cross-section (hearing, deaf, blind and deaf-blind) of the cultural 
and linguistic characteristics of the consumers the program serves,” they should be able to satisfy the 
                                                     
57
Id. at 5265, para. 17.
58
Id. at 5265, para. 18.
59
Id. at 5261-62, para. 11.
60
See, e.g., CDBP Comments at 2 (recommending no changes to existing criteria); GACHI Comments at 7 
(supporting retention of current criteria); IDBI Comments at 7-8; Perkins Comments at 8; Comments of the State 
Rehabilitation Council for the New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired (SRC/CBVI Comments) 
at 2 (stating that it “does not believe there is a need to impose additional requirements”).
61
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5263-64, para. 14.
62
Perkins Comments at 8.
63
Id.
64
See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 7 (supporting retention of the certification criteria used in the pilot program, but 
urging minimum standards and training for personnel, because “certain levels of linguistic competency would go a 
long way to ensure effective communication for all deaf-blind clients”).  The Seattle Lighthouse also suggests that 
individuals who are deaf-blind be involved in determining what those standards should be and whether an entity 
possesses the requisite communication, language, and cultural competencies for certification, and be engaged at all 
levels of administration and management of the NDBEDP, to ensure that the program is “authentic, relevant and 
effective.” Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 3-4.  We agree that certified programs will benefit from the first-hand 
knowledge of people who are deaf-blind in all aspects of their NDBEDP operations, and we encourage engaging 
these individuals as much as possible for these purposes.
65
Perkins Comments at 8.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
12
certification criteria for language competency and technical proficiency.
66
  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.
67
  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.
68
  Accordingly, rather than adopt new program personnel 
criteria in the permanent NDBEDP, we will continue permitting applicants for certification to 
demonstrate “[e]xpertise in the field of deaf-blindness” and “[t]he ability to communicate effectively with 
people who are deaf-blind” in a variety of ways to serve the full spectrum of individuals who are deaf-
blind.
69
22. Administrative and Financial Management Experience.  Parties responding to the 
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM support our proposal to add administrative and financial management experience 
to the requirements for certification, to ensure that entities applying for NDBEDP certification have the 
ability to administer a statewide program and the capacity to manage the financial requirements of a state 
program.
70
  Perkins reports that it “has worked with several certified entities that did not have the 
necessary infrastructure to support managing their state’s NDBEDP,” several of which later relinquished 
their certifications.
71
  Others note administrative and accounting skills are a large portion of a certified 
entity’s responsibilities and are necessary to the proper functioning of the program.
72
  Based on this 
feedback and our experience under the pilot program, we add administrative and financial management 
experience to the certification criteria because we expect 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.
73
  
                                                     
66
HKNC Comments at 3.  Moreover, as several commenters note, linguistic or communication competency does not 
necessarily translate into having the necessary expertise to recommend equipment.  See ATK Comments at 2; ATLA 
Comments at 1; IOD Comments at 2; WATAP Comments at 2.
67
Perkins Comments at 8.  Along these lines, we agree with Seattle Lighthouse that program personnel who have 
“outstanding communication, linguistic and cultural skills” needed for outreach, assessments, and training, 
“shouldn’t be eliminated for lack of or minimal data entry skill sets,” but that such data entry functions should be 
performed by other personnel as much as possible.  Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 5.
68
See SRC/CBVI Comments at 2 (stating that, because state programs are reimbursed for the reasonable costs of 
providing qualified interpreter services to ensure effective communication, additional requirements for program 
personnel are not required); see also CGB, Examples of Reimbursable Expenses (July 2, 2012), 
http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedp/cnbw (NDBEDP Expenses) (containing Bureau guidance stating that the 
reasonable costs to provide auxiliary aids and services, such as sign language interpreter services to ensure effective 
communication with individuals who are deaf-blind, are reimbursable up to each certified program’s annual funding 
allocation).  For example, these services can be provided when conducting individual assessments and training.
69
47 CFR § 64.610(b)(3)(i)-(ii) (pilot program rules).
70
See, e.g., CDBP Comments at 2; HKNC Comments at 3; IDBI Comments at 8 (stating “applicants should be 
required to demonstrate that they are capable of operating a statewide program and follow standard financial 
principles”); Perkins Comments at 9; WATAP Comments at 2. 
71
Perkins Comments at 9.
72
CDBP Comments at 2 (suggesting also that the administration and financial management components of the 
program “may overwhelm some otherwise qualified entities”); WATAP Comments at 2.
73
We agree with HKNC 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 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
13
23. Improper Incentives.  No parties opposed our proposals to continue prohibiting certified 
programs from accepting any type of financial arrangement from an equipment vendor that could 
incentivize the purchase of certain equipment, requiring entities applying for NDBEDP certification to 
disclose during the initial certification application process and thereafter, as necessary, any actual or 
potential conflicts of interest with manufacturers or providers of equipment that may be distributed under 
the NDBEDP,
74
or reject an application for certification when its financial arrangements create the risk of 
impeding objectivity in the distribution of equipment or compliance with NDBEDP requirements.
75
  We 
agree that financial or other incentive arrangements between vendors and certified entities could create a 
disincentive to provide equipment that best meets the unique needs of each program participant, and 
therefore adopt these proposals as discussed below.
76
  
24. 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 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.  We adopt our 
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 
modify 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.
77
  We further clarify 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.
78
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
“administrative expertise to establish and retain files, insure compliance, coordinate/schedule/deploy staff, interface 
with consumers and support the reimbursement process.”  HKNC Comments at 3. 
74
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5265, para. 18.
75
For example, such risk could occur when the applicant is partially or wholly owned by an equipment manufacturer 
or vendor.  See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 8-9; Perkins Comments at 9 (agreeing that certified programs should not 
accept incentives to purchase particular equipment); Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 7 (asserting that “[n]one of the 
entities should make a profit from equipment that they recommend”);  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5265, 
para. 18 (seeking comment on these matters); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5685, para. 102.  
76
IDBI Comments at 8-9.  Similarly, under the TRS program, the Commission has put into place prohibitions to 
prevent improper incentives to protect the integrity of the Interstate TRS Fund.  See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling, 
20 FCC Rcd 1466 (CGB 2005) (prohibiting any type of financial incentives to encourage or reward a consumer for 
placing a TRS call); FCC Clarifies that Certain TRS Marketing and Call Handling Practices Are Improper and 
Reminds that VRS May Not Be Used as a Video Remote Interpreting Service, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 13195 
(CGB 2005) (prohibiting certain marketing practices deemed to be improper under the TRS program).
77
We require applicants learning of a potential or actual conflict while their applications are pending to disclose 
such conflicts immediately upon learning of such conflict, to prevent delays in the Commission’s certification 
review. 
78
See, e.g., Perkins Comments at 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
14
25. Geographic Eligibility.  During the pilot program, the Bureau has selected entities to 
participate in the NDBEDP that are located both within and outside of the states that they serve.
79
  
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.
80
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we
proposed to continue allowing qualified in-state and out-of-state entities to apply for certification to 
administer any NDBEDP state program and, if selected, to work in collaboration with individuals or 
entities within or outside of the states or territories for which they are selected.
81
26. We will maintain this flexible approach, which the record supports, for the permanent 
NDBEDP.
82
  We agree 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.
83
  At the same time, we recognize the concerns expressed by commenters who urge the Commission 
to give preference to in-state entities,
84
claiming these to be more likely to have relationships with state 
networks and have the ability to meet consumers’ needs as they arise.”
85
  While we are not persuaded of 
the need to give preference or automatic priority to in-state entities at this time, we will consider the 
benefits that a local entity can bring to its own state’s residents in making our certification selections, 
especially when weighing the merits of equally qualified applicants.
27. Non-substantive Rule Change.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed a non-
substantial edit that would insert the words “training consumers on” in certification criterion (v).
86
  We 
adopt 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.”
                                                     
79
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5261, para. 11.
80
Perkins is the certified entity for 19 states in addition to Massachusetts (where Perkins is located), and HKNC is 
the certified entity for three states in addition to New York (where it is located).  For all but three of these 22 
programs (Arizona, Nevada, and Utah), the out-of-state entity selected was the sole applicant.  See, e.g., NDBEDP 
Pilot Program Certification Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 7398-99 (announcing that the Bureau received two 
applications for the state of Arizona and selected Perkins); Commission Announces Entity Selected for Certification 
to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program for Nevada, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 
10223 (CGB 2013) (announcing that the Bureau received two applications for the state of Nevada and selected 
Perkins); Commission Announces Entity Selected for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program for Utah, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 318 (CGB 2015) (announcing that the 
Bureau received two applications for the state of Utah and selected Perkins).  Many of the states for which Perkins is 
certified are states in which the entity originally certified by the Commission relinquished its certification.  
Specifically, Perkins replaced the former certified entities in Nevada, Mississippi, Vermont, Minnesota, Indiana, 
Michigan, Utah, and Washington.  In addition, HKNC replaced the former certified entities in Iowa, Hawaii, and 
Florida.
81
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5261-62, para. 11.
82
See, e.g., GACHI Comments at 4; HKNC Comments at 2; IDBI Comments at 6; Perkins Comments at 6.
83
See HKNC Comments at 2 (stating that it works with in-state partners to provide services “on the ground,” and 
noting that “[t]his may be the only option especially for some of the smaller states with limited resources”); IDBI 
Comments at 6; Perkins Comments at 6 (asserting that “allowing qualified out-of-state certified entities enables the 
participation of qualified [in-state] entities that could not otherwise assume the full responsibilities of certification to 
contribute their expertise to the state program”).
84
See ATAP Comments at 1-2; ATI Comments at 1-2; ATK Comments at 1; IPAT Comments at 1; LightHouse 
Comments at 2 (generally encouraging the Commission to give priority to qualified in-state entities and applications 
from neighboring states); MoAT Comments at 1; WATAP Comments at 1. 
85
ATK Comments at 1; see also MoAT Comments at 1 (stating that in-state entities can “reduce administrative 
layers and . . . more effectively serve residents”); LightHouse Comments at 2.
86
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5263, n.52; 47 CFR § 64.610(b)(3)(v).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
15
D. Duration of Certification 
28. Under the pilot program, entities that were selected to participate in the NDBEDP have 
been certified for the duration of the pilot program.
87
  By comparison, under the Commission’s TRS rules, 
states are certified by the Commission to operate their TRS programs for five years, after which they must 
seek renewal of their certifications.
88
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed that NDBEDP programs 
similarly be certified for a period of five years and sought comment on and alternatives to this proposal.
89
  
29. Commenters overwhelmingly support the proposed five-year certification period, finding 
it appropriate and reasonable.
90
  We believe 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.  We are also persuaded that adopting a shorter certification period would 
be burdensome and possibly disruptive to program participants.
91
  Therefore, we adopt 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 we expect 
that it will provide similar efficiencies for the NDBEDP. 
30. 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,
92
we will permit the 
successor entity to complete, but not exceed, the five-year term initiated by its predecessor.
93
  We note 
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.  We believe that retaining a common end date in the permanent NDBEDP will facilitate our 
administration and oversight of the program, and help to provide certainty to the states and territories 
participating in this program.
94
                                                     
87
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at5265, para. 19; NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5647, 
para. 14.
88
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5265-66, para. 19; see also 47 CFR § 64.606(c)(1) (setting a state TRS 
provider certification period of five years); 47 CFR § 64.606(c)(2) (setting an Internet-based TRS provider 
certification period of five years).
89
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5266, para. 19.
90
See, e.g., ATAP Comments at 2; ATI Comments at 2; ATK Comments at 2; ATLA Comments at 2; CAAG 
Comments at 4; CDBP Comments at 2; GACHI Comments at 8; IDBI Comments at 9; IOD Comments at 2; IPAT 
Comments at 2; LightHouse Comments at 2; MoAT Comments at 2; Perkins Comments at 10; Seattle Lighthouse 
Comments at 4 (supporting a five-year certification period unless there are “serious concerns” reported within that 
time frame, and urging that people who are deaf-blind serve on the certification review teams); SRC/CBVI 
Comments at 2; WATAP Comments at 2; Disability Rights Maine (DRM) Reply Comments at 12. 
91
ATAP Comments at 2; see also ATI Comments at 2; ATK Comments at 2; ATLA Comments at 2; IOD 
Comments at 2; IPAT Comments at 2; LightHouse Comments at 2; MoAT Comments at 2; SRC/CBVI Comments 
at 2; WATAP Comments at 2. 
92
See infra Parts III.G (Relinquishing Program Certification), III.H (Suspension or Revocation of Certification).
93
We reject Perkins’s suggestion that if a successor is selected to replace an outgoing entity, it be certified for a full 
five years upon receiving certification, which would “create a staggered schedule for program certifications.”  
Perkins Comments at 5.
94
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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
16
E. Certification Renewals
31. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 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 by submitting to the Commission an application with sufficient detail to demonstrate its 
ability to meet all criteria required for certification, either directly or in coordination with other programs 
or entities.
95
  We noted that this approach is consistent with the TRS certification rules for state TRS 
providers.
96
32. Commenters generally support this approach.
97
  As we concluded with respect to 
applications for initial certification under the permanent NDBEDP, we believe 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.
98
  We also believe that a one-year period will 
provide sufficient time for the renewal process, based on our experience with state renewals under the 
TRS program.  For these reasons, we adopt our proposal.  We further direct the Bureau to announce, by 
public notice, the identity of all applicants who request such certification.
99
  We further direct 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.
F. Obligations of Certified Entities 
33. Prohibition on Financial Arrangements or Incentives. Under the NDBEDP pilot 
program, once certified, entities operating state programs have been prohibited from accepting financial 
arrangements from a vendor that could incentivize the purchase of particular equipment.
100
  We will 
continue to prohibit certified programs from entering into any financial relationship, arrangement, or 
agreement that creates improper incentives to purchase particular equipment.
101
  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 
                                                     
95
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5267, para. 25.
96
Id.; see 47 CFR § 64.606(c)(1) (stating that a state TRS provider may apply for renewal one year prior to 
expiration of its certification).  For example, if a state receives certification from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2021, it 
would be required to submit an application for recertification by July 1, 2020, which is the beginning of the last year 
that the state holds certification.
97
See CAAG Comments at 5; HKNC Comments at 4; IDBI Comments at 10; Perkins Comments at 12.  No 
commenter objected to the proposal. 
98
See supra para. 14; HKNC Comments at 4 (suggesting that this would provide more opportunities for in-state 
entities to reconsider managing their own state programs, and that this may better serve their residents than out-of-
state entities).
99
As with initial applications, see supra para. 16, 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.  See Perkins Comments at 12 (asking the Commission to consider how state programs should be 
notified if a competing bid for certification is submitted).  The Bureau may extend the application period for those 
jurisdictions where no qualified entity has applied for renewal or as a new entrant.
100
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(2)(iii) (pilot program rule).
101
The Commission sought comment on retaining this prohibition in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM.  NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5290, para. 73.  To provide a more clear-cut definition of what is prohibited, we replace the 
term “could incentivize” in the pilot program rule with “creates improper incentives.”  See infra Appendix D (Final 
Rules). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
17
received certification under the permanent NDBEDP.
102
  We require 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 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.
103
  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.
34. Substantive Changes.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to require each state 
program, once certified, to report to the Commission any substantive change within 60 days of when such 
change occurs, noting that this would be consistent with our requirements for TRS providers.
104
  
Substantive changes include those that might bear on the qualifications of the entity to meet our 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.
105
  Commenters generally support this proposal.
106
  In light of 
such support and because we believe that this requirement can help to ensure that programs continue to 
meet our criteria for certification when substantive changes occur, we adopt this requirement, as modified 
for clarity.
107
G. Relinquishing Program Certification
35. We discourage certified entities from relinquishing their certification mid-term but 
understand that this may be necessary if a certified entity determines it is no longer capable of managing 
its state program.  In the almost three years between the start of the NDBEDP pilot program and the 
release of the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 10 of the 53 entities selected to administer and operate state 
programs relinquished their certifications, requiring the Bureau to seek replacements for those states.
108
  
According to the NDBEDP Administrator, certified entities have provided a number of reasons for 
                                                     
102
See supra para. 24.
103
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5685, para. 102 (concluding that such arrangements or 
incentives may “impede a certified program’s ability to provide equipment that fully meets the unique needs of the 
deaf-blind persons it is serving”).
104
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5267, para. 24; 47 CFR § 64.606(f)(1).
105
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5267, para. 24.
106
See CAAG Comments at 5 (but proposing a 30-day period for notification, given how rapidly technology and 
services for people who are deaf-blind advance); CDBP Comments at 3 (stating that this is “an important and 
appropriate requirement”); IDBI Comments at 10; LightHouse Comments at 3; Perkins Comments at 11 (stating that 
the 60-day notification requirement seems reasonable).
107
See infra Appendix D (Final Rules) (adding Section 64.6207(f), requiring 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 under paragraph (c) of this section”).
108
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5261, para. 10 & nn.36, 39 (identifying Nevada, Mississippi, 
Vermont, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Utah, and Hawaii as the states in which entities 
relinquished their certifications and for which the Bureau invited applications for and selected replacements).  Since 
May 2015, the entities serving Maine, Virginia, Florida, and Washington relinquished their certifications and were 
replaced.  See Commission Announces Entity Selected for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program for Maine, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 8296 (CGB 2015); Commission Announces 
Entity Selected for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program for 
Virginia, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 184 (CGB 2016); Commission Announces Entities Selected for Certification to 
Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program for Florida and Washington, Public Notice, 
DA 16-745 (CGB June 30, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
18
stepping down from their NDBEDP programs.  These include having limited, insufficient, or diminished 
staffing resources, experiencing financial and program planning challenges, and having difficulty keeping 
administrative expenses below the 15% cap on such expenses.
109
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 
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.
110
  
36. Commenters support the proposed 90-day notice requirement for any entity intending to 
relinquish its certification.
111
  Given this support, 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, we adopt this requirement for the permanent NDBEDP.  We further require that any entity seeking 
to relinquish its certification include in such notice its reason for exiting the program, including its 
proposed departure date.  We believe 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, we 
require 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. 
37. 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.
112
  Some commenters express the concern that this has 
provided insufficient time for local organizations to gather the necessary letters of support and other 
documentation to apply.
113
  Further, some commenters note that this timing may provide an advantage to 
national organizations over new, local applicants.
114
  Although the 15-day deadline was established to 
expedite replacement and ensure that all interested parties have an adequate opportunity to apply for 
certification, we direct the Bureau to provide a minimum of 30 days for the receipt of such applications.  
We believe that a 30-day period is reasonable, especially given our adoption of a 90-day notice 
requirement for any entity intending to relinquish its certification.
                                                     
109
Jackie Ellington, Attorney Advisor, Disability Rights Office, FCC, Submission for the Record, CG Docket No. 
10-210 (July 14, 2016).
110
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5261, para. 10.  To ease some of the administrative program burdens and 
potentially reduce program departures, we also proposed to establish a centralized database for the filing of 
reimbursement claims and semiannual reports to the Commission, which we discuss below.  Id.; see also infra Part 
VII.E (NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement).  The 15% cap on administrative 
expenses, which has been suggested as another reason for program departures, is also addressed below.  See infra
Part VI.E (Administrative Costs).
111
See generally ATI Comments at 1 (citing the “well-being of the consumers” for its support of the proposal); see 
also ATAP Comments at 1; ATK Comments at 1; ATLA Comments at 1; CAAG Comments at 4; CDBP Comments 
at 2; IDBI Comments at 6; IOD Comments at 1; IPAT Comments at 1; LightHouse Comments at 2; MoAT 
Comments at 1; Perkins Comments at 5; WATAP Comments at 1.
112
See, e.g., FCC Invites Applications for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program in the State of Virginia, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 13659 (CGB 2015).
113
See, e.g., ATK Comments at 1; ATLA Comments at 1; IOD Comments at 1-2; see also ATAP Comments at 1; 
ATI Comments at 1; IPAT Comments at 1; LightHouse Comments at 2; WATAP Comments at 1.
114
ATLA Comments at 1; see also IOD Comments at 1-2; WATAP Comments at 1.  Some commenters also state 
that national entities appear to have early notice of relinquishments, because “immediately upon the 
[relinquishment] announcement, it appeared that a national entity had already been making contacts in those states to 
line up support [for its certification].”  ATAP Comments at 1; see also ATK Comments at 1; ATI Comments at 1; 
IPAT Comments at 1; LightHouse Comments at 2.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
19
H. Suspension or Revocation of Certification
38. 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.
115
  In 
the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on the appropriate process for revocation or suspension 
and whether providing a program with a reasonable time to present its views and objections to the 
Commission in writing would satisfy due process requirements and enable the Commission to take action 
without undue delay.
116
  
39. Some commenters oppose an administrative hearing, preferring written pleadings in order 
to expedite review, which in turn would minimize a disruption in services.
117
  One commenter supports an 
administrative hearing, and argues it should be conducted within 30 days, and that the Commission 
should decide within 30 days after the hearing whether the certified program can continue to participate in 
the NDBEDP.
118
40. To ensure that the Commission can act expeditiously and effectively to replace a certified 
entity should that become necessary, we retain the authority to suspend or revoke an entity’s certification 
when we determine 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.
41. We amend 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. 
42. 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.
119
  A suspension of certification will remain in effect until the expiration date, if 
                                                     
115
47 CFR § 64.610(j)(1) (pilot program rule).  To date, the Commission has not initiated any such proceedings.
116
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5268, para. 26.  For example, if revocation proceedings become necessary 
because a certified entity can no longer operate effectively (e.g., because of persistent personnel shortages), 
consumers may not be effectively served until revocation becomes effective and another entity is authorized to take 
over the state program.
117
Perkins Comments at 12; IDBI Comments at 10.
118
GACHI Comments at 9.
119
See 47 CFR §§ 1.101-1.117.  For example, in response to a suspension or revocation ordered by the Bureau, the 
affected program could file an application for review of the Bureau order by the full Commission.  47 CFR § 1.115.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
20
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. 
43. These procedures are similar in some respects to those for suspension and debarment of 
an individual or entity receiving Universal Service Fund (USF) support.
120
  Unlike the USF suspension 
and debarment procedures, however, the procedures we adopt for the NDBEDP do not contemplate that 
participation in the NDBEDP will automatically be suspended at the beginning of the suspension or 
revocation process.
121
  Rather, to minimize disruption, we retain the pilot program provision allowing the 
Commission or the Bureau to take appropriate and necessary steps to ensure continuity of service for 
equipment applicants and recipients in the affected state.
122
  We believe 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. 
I. Obligations of Outgoing Entities 
44. Compliance with NDBEDP Requirements.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 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.
123
  
45. This proposal has support in the record.
124
  Because we believe this requirement is 
necessary to maintain program integrity, we adopt 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.  We amend our rules to incorporate this requirement.
125
  
46. Transfer of Data and Inventory.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, to minimize the impact of 
transitions on consumers, we 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 
                                                     
120
See 47 CFR § 54.8.
121
See 47 CFR § 54.8(e)(1) (providing that suspension of participation in the USF program shall be effective upon 
the earlier of receipt or Federal Register publication of the initial notice of suspension and proposed debarment).  
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.  
122
For example, these might include establishing greater oversight by the NDBEDP Administrator coupled with new 
reporting obligations for the affected entity pending the final decision by the Bureau or Commission. 
123
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5261, para. 10.
124
See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 6.
125
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.  See infra Part VI (Funding).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
21
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.
126
  
47. Commenters generally support this requirement for an entity relinquishing certification to 
transfer its equipment and data to the successor entity.
127
  Because we believe this mandate will help to 
ensure a smooth transition to the successor entity and reduce any potential for a lapse in service, we adopt 
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,
128
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.
129
  In addition, we require the transfer of 
all NDBEDP-purchased equipment and materials that remain in the outgoing entity’s inventory,
130
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.  We further require 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.
131
48. 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,
132
and then a second public notice to announce the successor entity.
133
  In the NDBEDP 
2015 NPRM, we sought comment on how best to ensure that consumers are informed when the entity 
                                                     
126
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5261, 5266, paras. 10, 21.
127
See, e.g., CAAG Comments at 4; CDBP Comments at 2; IDBI Comments at 6, 9; Perkins Comments at 5, 10.
128
CDBP recommends that equipment should be transferred to the successor entity within 10 business days.  CDBP 
Comments at 2.  We believe 30 days is reasonable.  
129
See infra Part VII.F (Audits and Record Retention) (requiring certified programs to retain NDBEDP records for a 
minimum of five years).  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.
130
Equipment that remains in the outgoing entity’s inventory may include 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.  We agree with Perkins that the obligation to transfer equipment does not extend to 
equipment that has been distributed to individuals.  See Perkins Comments at 10.
131
See Part V.A (Equipment:  Notice to Equipment Applicants) (requiring certified programs to include an 
attestation on all consumer application forms for this and other program-related purposes).
132
See, e.g., FCC Invites Applications for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program in the State of Michigan, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 11148 (CGB 2014); FCC Invites 
Applications for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program in the 
States of Vermont and Nebraska, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 3921 (CGB 2014).  
133
See, e.g., Commission Announces Entity Selected for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind 
Equipment Distribution Program for Michigan, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 11769 (CGB 2014); Commission 
Announces Entities Selected for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution 
Program for Vermont and Nebraska, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 5883 (CGB 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
22
certified to operate their state’s NDBEDP program changes.
134
  For example, we asked whether, in 
addition to issuing public notices, we should require the outgoing entity to directly notify affected 
consumers about the successor entity.
135
49. Commenters support notifying state residents about a change in the certified entity for 
their state, noting the need to minimize consumer confusion.
136
  Some suggest requiring outgoing entities 
to directly notify equipment recipients and applicants in their states about the successor entity.
137
  The 
Seattle Lighthouse argues that “multiple methods of notification” are needed because, for example, 
electronic or written notification may not be effective for deaf-blind consumers who communicate using 
tactile American Sign Language.
138
  
50. Given the general agreement among commenters, we adopt 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.
139
  We conclude 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.
140
  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.
J. Implementation of the Permanent NDBEDP and Termination of the Pilot Program
51. Because adoption of the permanent NDBEDP rules involves new information collection 
requirements that are subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (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 will not become effective before July 1, 2017.
141
  
                                                     
134
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5268, para. 27.
135
Id.
136
CAAG Comments at 5; GACHI Comments at 9; IDBI Comments at 6, 10; Perkins Comments at 13; Seattle 
Lighthouse Comments at 4-5.
137
CAAG Comments at 5; IDBI Comments at 10; Perkins Comments at 13; see also IDBI Comments at 10 
(proposing state agencies and organizations that serve deaf-blind individuals provide such information); GACHI 
Comments at 9 (arguing that public notices are sufficient where certification is relinquished, but that consumers in 
the affected state should be notified individually when the Commission revokes a program’s certification, to protect 
against disclosing personal information to the decertified entity).
138
Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 4-5.
139
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.
140
For example, such notice can be conveyed by e-mail, 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.
141
See 2016 Extension Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 6149, para. 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
23
52. 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. We clarify 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 we adopt today will apply to the permanent NDBEDP only and not to the 
pilot program. 
IV. CONSUMER ELIGIBILITY
53. 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)
142
– and low income.  In this part we (1) establish criteria to determine eligibility as an individual 
who is “deaf-blind” under the HKNC Act; (2) adopt rules for verifying eligibility under the definition of 
“deaf-blind” based on a professional’s attestation or existing documentation; (3) set low-income 
eligibility to not exceed 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG); (4) provide guidance on the 
calculation of income for determining low-income eligibility; (5) adopt 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) address other eligibility criteria as discussed below.
A. Definition of Individuals who are Deaf-Blind
54. 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.
143
  
As discussed below, we believe that this interpretation can best achieve Congress’s overall goal of 
ensuring the accessibility of communications technologies for the deaf-blind population,
144
and therefore 
                                                     
142
47 U.S.C. § 620(a)-(b).  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). 
143
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5651-52, paras. 26-27; see also 47 CFR § 64.610(c)(2). 
144
The Seattle Lighthouse proposes that the Commission change the term “deaf-blind” to “DeafBlind,” which it says 
is the preferred term of the DeafBlind community because it reflects a single individual with both hearing and vision 
losses.  Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 5.  Because “deaf-blind” is the terminology used in Section 719(a) of the 
CVAA, for consistency, we will continue using this term for purposes of the NDBEDP; however we may revisit the 
need to revise this terminology as necessary in the future.  See 47 U.S.C. § 620(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
24
retain it for purposes of defining who is eligible to receive equipment and related services under the 
permanent NDBEDP.
145
55. The HKNC Act sets forth three independent definitions that can be used to determine 
whether a person is “deaf-blind.”
146
  The first definition contains three prongs that must be satisfied.
147
  
The first of these requires an assessment of the individual’s vision,
148
and provides clear, measurable 
standards for loss of visual acuity, to which the Commission is bound to apply.
149
  The second prong asks 
whether the individual has a hearing loss so severe “that most speech cannot be understood with optimum 
amplification.”
150
  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.
151
  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.”
152
  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.
153
  
56. 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.”
154
  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.
155
  
57. We retain for the permanent NDBEDP the definition of “deaf-blind” that has been 
applied in the NDBEDP pilot program.
156
  Commenters support this interpretation.
157
  We conclude that 
                                                     
145
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5651-52, paras. 26-27.  The Commission invited comment 
on whether it should retain this interpretation for the permanent NDBEDP in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM.  NDBEDP 
2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5274, para. 40.
146
29 U.S.C. § 1905(2).
147
Id. at § 1905(2)(A).
148
Id. at § 1905(2)(A)(i).  
149
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5651, para. 27.  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).  As noted above, the HKNC Act provides a different standard for individuals whose hearing or 
vision cannot be measured accurately due to cognitive or behavioral constraints, or both.  29 U.S.C. § 1905(2)(B).
150
29 U.S.C. § 1905(2)(A)(ii).
151
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5651-52, para. 27.
152
29 U.S.C. § 1905(2)(A)(iii).
153
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5651-52, paras. 26-27.
154
29 U.S.C. § 1905(2)(B).
155
Id. at § 1905(2)(C).
156
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5651-52, paras. 26-27.  We note 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 (see 29 U.S.C. § 1905(2)(C)), because we 
cannot predict whether such regulations would be appropriate for application to the NDBEDP.
157
See American Council of the Blind (ACB) Comments at 1; HKNC Comments at 4 (“retaining the HKNC 
definition makes sense as it is used in other aspects of federal funding and program determination”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
25
we have 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 we continue 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.
158
  
B. Verification that an Individual is Deaf-Blind
58. 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.
159
  Professionals must make such attestations 
either to the best of their knowledge or under penalty of perjury.
160
  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 e-mail address.
161
  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.
162
  
59. We tentatively concluded in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM that we would retain these 
disability verification requirements for the permanent NDBEDP.
163
  We invited comment on whether a 
professional’s attestation that an individual is deaf-blind should include the basis of the attesting 
professional’s knowledge.
164
  We also sought comment on proposals to require the disability verification 
to include the attesting professional’s full name, title, and contact information (including business name, 
address, phone number, and e-mail address), and to require certified programs to re-verify an individual’s 
disability eligibility when the individual applies for new equipment three years or more after the program 
last verified the individual’s disability.
165
  
60. We 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.  Commenters with extensive 
experience and expertise in the field of deaf-blindness, including entities that provide direct services to 
individuals who are deaf-blind, programs participating in the NDBEDP, and organizations comprised of 
and representing individuals who are deaf-blind, confirm the benefits of retaining this disability 
verification rule based on their experience with the pilot program.
166
  Among other things, these 
                                                     
158
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5652, para. 27; see also IDBI Comments at 14 (supporting the 
continued consideration of an individual’s functional abilities when determining who is eligible under the 
NDBEDP).
159
47 CFR § 64.610(d)(1)(i)-(ii) (pilot program rules).  
160
Id. at § 64.610(d)(1)(ii).  Such professionals may also include, in the attestation, information about the 
individual’s functional abilities to use telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications services 
in various settings.  Id.
161
Id. at § 64.610(d)(1)(iv) (pilot program rule).
162
Id. at § 64.610(d)(1)(iii); see also 47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(ii) (pilot program rule requiring certified programs to 
obtain verification that applicants meet the definition of an individual who is deaf-blind under the NDBEDP rules).
163
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5274, para. 42. 
164
Id.
165
Id. at 5274-75, para. 42, Appendix F (Proposed Rule Changes).
166
See, e.g., AADB Comments at 2; ACB Comments at 1; HKNC Comments at 5; IDBI Comments at 14 (agreeing 
with the retention of current verification requirements); Perkins Comments at 19; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 5 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
26
commenters confirm that such measures can help maintain the integrity of the program by preventing 
fraud and abuse by ineligible individuals.
167
  
61. We further adopt our proposal for each professional to provide the basis for his or her 
attestation that an individual is deaf-blind.  As shown in the record, the provision of this information will 
assist programs in substantiating the deaf-blind individual’s equipment needs.
168
  So that the program may 
contact the professional if necessary, we also adopt our proposal to require the attestation to include the 
professional’s full name, title, and contact information, including business name, address, phone number, 
and e-mail address.
169
  
62. We 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.
170
  We 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.
171
  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.
172
  We conclude 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.
173
  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
(supporting the “continuing practice of flexibility in accepting verification of disability from a wide range of 
professionals as well as from documents in the applicant’s possession”); SRC/CBVI Comments at 3; DRM Reply 
Comments at 20.
167
See, e.g., GACHI Comments at 15 (“Current verification processes . . . prohibit individuals from providing false 
documentation.”); see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5653-54, para. 31 (finding, based on the 
record developed for the pilot program, that this measure can prevent potential fraud or abuse of this program). 
168
GACHI Comments at 15; see also HKNC Comments at 5; Perkins Comments at 19 (“We agree that 
professional’s attestation that an individual is deaf-blind should include the basis of the attesting professional’s 
knowledge.”).  We therefore disagree with SRC/CBVI that, because the attesting professional must declare that its 
evaluation is done under “penalty of perjury,” there is no need to require the basis of the evaluation.  See SRC/CBVI 
Comments at 3.
169
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5274-5, 5336, para. 42, Appendix F (Proposed Rule Changes).  
Commenters generally support requiring professionals to provide their contact information.  See, e.g., ACB 
Comments at 1; IDBI Comments at 14 (requiring professionals to provide contact information may serve the interest 
of “reducing possible fraud”); Perkins Comments at 19.
170
See ACB Comments at 1 (“[U]nless there is reason to believe the consumer has had a change in their vision or 
hearing status, there is no need to have individuals re-verify their deaf-blind status.”).  
171
See, e.g., HKNC Comments at 5 (“Most often, vision and hearing loss either stays the same or worsens.”); DRM 
Reply Comments at 20 (“Because hearing and visual impairments of the nature and severity that customarily qualify 
an individual for this program typically progress over time and rarely, if ever, improve, initial verification should be 
deemed sufficient for the duration of whatever time the client remains interested in obtaining equipment . . ..”).  
172
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5653-54, para. 31; see ACB Comments at 1 (“Re-verification 
may pose an unnecessary burden on the consumer if there is no change in vision or hearing.”); Perkins Comments at 
19 (it would be “unduly burdensome” to require new disability attestations for individuals already deemed eligible).
173
Although SRC/CBVI and IDBI express support for re-verifying eligibility when the individual applies for new 
equipment at least three years after the individual’s initial verification, neither of these entities provides any support 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
27
63. Our 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, we 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.
174
  This will permit certified programs 
to effectively respond to changes in the type and severity of an individual’s disability.
C. Income Eligibility
64. To participate in the NDBEDP, the deaf-blind applicant must be “low income.”
175
  The 
NDBEDP pilot program rules define low income as income that does not exceed 400% of the FPG.
176
  
For example, for 2016, applicants whose income exceeds the following amounts in families with up to 
four members are not eligible to participate in the NDBEDP:
177
Number of persons in 
family/household
States and Territories
Other than Alaska and Hawaii
Alaska Hawaii
1 $47,520 $59,360 $54,680
2 $64,080 $80,080 $73,720
3 $80,640 $100,800 $92,760
4 $97,200 $121,520 $111,800
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
for the theory that an individual’s disability is likely to improve within this period.  See IDBI Comments at 14; 
SRC/CBVI Comments at 3.
174
See Perkins Comments at 19 (noting because changes in hearing and vision almost always result in greater loss of 
these abilities, “it is more appropriate to require a re-assessment to justify further equipment and/or training, rather 
than a new attestation.”); HKNC Comments at 4-5 (explaining that an evaluator may sometimes need the consumer 
to produce a new vision report to justify different or additional equipment, and providing as an example, a consumer 
who transitions from equipment requiring partial sight to a braille display or screen reader that might be more often 
used by people who are totally blind).
175
47 U.S.C. § 620(a).
176
47 CFR § 64.610(d)(2).  The poverty guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 9902(2).  See, e.g., Department of 
Health and Human Services, Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 81 Fed. Reg. 4036 (Jan. 25, 2016).  
The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and Palau.  When a federal program using the poverty guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the 
federal office that administers the program is responsible for deciding whether to use the contiguous-states-and-DC 
guidelines for those jurisdictions or to follow some other procedure.  Department of Health and Human Services, 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Education, U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine 
Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs (Jan. 25, 2016), https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.  As it did 
during the pilot program, the Commission will continue to use the contiguous-states-and-D.C. guidelines for the 
U.S. Territories that participate in the NDBEDP.
177
FCC, National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program Consumer Guide (Feb. 5, 2016), 
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/national-deaf-blind-equipment-distribution-program.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
28
65. 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 specialized customer premises equipment (SCPE) used by this population.
178
  In the 
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on whether the NDBEDP should continue to use 400% of the 
FPG as the criterion for income eligibility, noting that parties responding to the Permanent NDBEDP 
Public Notice had continued to express concerns about the high costs of equipment and services for 
people who are deaf-blind.  In addition, we invited comment on whether there are alternative ways to 
define low income in the NDBEDP context, and specifically whether the threshold for determining 
eligibility under the Commission’s Lifeline program, which provides discounted telephone service to 
individuals with incomes at or below 135% of the FPG, is appropriate for the NDBEDP.  Finally, the 
Commission asked whether a household can be deemed low income if its income exceeds the national 
median household income, measured in 2013, of $52,250.
179
66. We conclude that the record supports the continued application of 400% of the FPG as 
the income ceiling for the permanent NDBEDP,
180
and accordingly we retain this threshold.  Most parties 
commenting on this issue report that this threshold has provided a reasonable approach, in that it has 
enabled local programs to serve a sizeable portion of individuals who are deaf-blind in their 
communities.
181
  The few commenters who object to this threshold urge an even higher income ceiling, 
out of concern that some deaf-blind individuals are deemed ineligible to receive communications 
equipment under the current ceiling.
182
  For example, AADB alleges that this threshold may preclude 
employed participants that still cannot afford thousands of dollars for accessible equipment.
183
  Similarly, 
out of concern that certain deaf-blind individuals may not be able to afford costly equipment (such as 
Braille displays), the Seattle Lighthouse proposes that the Commission provide equipment on a sliding 
scale based on the individual’s ability to pay.
184
  
67. We received little comment in response to our inquiries about the relevance of the 
Lifeline income threshold and the median U.S. household income to the NDBEDP income eligibility 
determination.
185
  Our own analysis, however, leads us to conclude that the considerations at issue for the 
                                                     
178
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5655-56, paras. 33-34 & n.102. 
179
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5276-77, paras. 46-47.
180
See, e.g., GACHI Comments at 15 (noting that most applicants receive state or government funds, or both, such 
as SSDA); SRC/CBVI Comments at 3 (supporting continued use of this measure for determining income eligibility, 
and acknowledging the Commission’s sensitivity to the high costs of medical and disability related expenses in 
establishing this threshold for the pilot program).
181
See, e.g., ACB Comments at 1 (stating its belief that the current threshold is reasonable); IDBI Comments at 14 
(stating that 400% is a “good fit”).
182
See, e.g., Perkins Comments at 19 (noting that although the threshold allowed the provision of equipment to most 
eligible adults, “[s]ome otherwise eligible children have been disqualified because of their family income”).
183
AADB Comments at 1-2 (stating that “the poverty level should be adjusted or changed,” and noting that 
telephone equipment in hearing households is cheaper than equipment in deaf-blind household and that most hearing 
people have higher incomes than deaf-blind persons).
184
Seattle Lighthouse at 5 (raising concerns about not making costly equipment, such as Braille displays, available 
once a person reaches a certain income level).
185
Specifically, no commenter addresses the appropriateness of utilizing the Lifeline income ceiling, and while a 
few commenters respond to the appropriateness of deeming a household as low income if its income exceeds the 
2013 national median household income of $52,250, their comments primarily focus on applying the median itself 
as the low-income threshold.  Specifically, IDBI suggests that the “median threshold may be a better fit for some
eligible deaf-blind consumers even though their income may exceed median income.” IDBI Comments at 14.  
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
29
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.
186
  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.
187
In 
addition, as explained above and 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.”
188
  Thus, an analogy to the Lifeline program that largely serves the general population is 
inapposite to the NDBEDP.  For the same reason, we conclude that it is not appropriate to compare the 
median U.S. household income with the threshold that we are 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.  We reiterate the 
Commission’s 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’ – we must adopt an income threshold that 
takes into account these unusually high medical and disability-related expenses, which significantly lower 
one’s disposable income.”
189
  Further, we note 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.
190
  It would defeat the very 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Perkins suggests that eligible children and eligible seniors who reside with their children’s families might be 
disqualified because of their family income if the Commission adopts the median as a threshold.  Perkins Comments 
at 20.
186
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order 26 FCC Rcd at 5656, para. 36 & n.112 (providing cost estimates as high as 
$6,000-$8,000 for communications equipment for people who are deaf-blind).  These costs have not declined in the 
intervening years since the pilot program began.  
187
Letter from Perkins School for the Blind to CGB, FCC, CG Docket No. 10-210, at 2 (filed June 22, 2016) 
(Perkins Ex Parte) (updating pilot program statistics based on information reported by 30+ certified programs that 
used the Perkins database); see also, e.g., NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5276, n.138 (reporting that parties 
responding to the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice described the high cost of equipment that deaf-blind 
consumers need as “unaffordable” and “cost prohibitive for many”); HumanWare, Solutions that Empower People 
with Vision Loss, http://www.humanware.com/en-usa/home (last visited July 18, 2016); HIMS, Deaf-Blind 
Solutions, http://hims-inc.com/products/deaf-blind-communicators (last visited July 18, 2016) (highlighting 
equipment that can cost thousands of dollars).
188
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5656-57, para. 37; see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 
FCC Rcd at 5656, para. 34 (noting that individuals who are deaf-blind often have multiple disabilities and complex 
medical challenges that can result in “extraordinary expenses due to their unique needs” (quoting National Coalition 
Comments at 5 in that proceeding)).  Commenters in that proceeding explained that the leading syndrome causing 
deaf-blindness in the student population is the CHARGE syndrome, a medical condition that typically requires 
extensive medical care (e.g., g-tube, tracheotomy, liquid nutrition, and braces for scoliosis) with “deductibles and 
co-payments that add up to thousands of dollars annually” that often leaves families and individuals with very little 
disposable income.  Id. at 5656, para. 34 (quoting National Coalition Comments in that proceeding).
189
Id. at 5656, para. 36 (quoting S. Rep. No. 111-386 at 3 (2010) (S. Rep.)).
190
For example, as of June 2016, 69.0% of people without disabilities participate in the labor force, compared to 
only 20.6% of people with disabilities.  U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 
Disability Statistics, http://www.dol.gov/odep (last visited July 18, 2016).  Although there are no known definitive 
reports about the employment rates for people who are deaf-blind, a longitudinal study of “young adults with 
disabilities out of high school up to 8 years” reported in 2011 that only 30.1% of such individuals had paid 
employment outside the home at the time of their interviews—the lowest employment rate among the various types 
of disabilities represented in the study.  See Lynn Newman et al., U.S. Department of Education, The Post-High 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
30
purposes of the NDBEDP to promote the independence and productivity of this population were we 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.  
68. Although we recognize 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.
191
  Nevertheless, based on our 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,
192
we conclude 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”
193
– and given the unusually high medical and disability-related 
expenses generally incurred by the covered population, we conclude that the 400% threshold originally 
adopted by the Commission for the pilot program is appropriate for the permanent NDBEDP.
D. Calculation of Income
69. Income Determinations.  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.
194
  In this regard, the Commission asked whether other federal programs 
use taxable income to determine low-income program eligibility, whether taxable income should be 
defined as gross income minus allowable deductions,
195
and whether to consider various non-medical and 
non-disability related exemptions and state income tax deductions in calculating an individual’s 
income.
196
  At the same time, the Commission asked whether the program burdens that might be 
associated with determining eligibility based on taxable income would be justified by the benefits of this 
approach.
197
  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School, A Report from the National 
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) 55 Table 19 (2011), 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf (NCSER 2011-3005).
191
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5276, para. 46.
192
In addition to or in combination with the NDBEDP, most states have their own programs to distribute accessible 
communications equipment to persons with various kinds of disabilities.  See Telecommunications Equipment 
Distribution Program Association (TEDPA), Do You Know Somebody that Has a Hard Time Communicating on the 
Phone?, http://www.tedpa.org/StateProgram.aspx (last visited July 18, 2016) (providing contact information and 
links to state equipment distribution programs). Reflecting an apparent objective to serve as many state residents 
with disabilities in need of accessible devices as possible, at least 16 states have not imposed any income eligibility 
restrictions on their applicants for equipment distributed outside the NDBEDP.  In addition, at least seven states 
have income eligibility requirements that exceed 400% of the FPG, at least for small households.
193
S. Rep. at 3; see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5656, para. 36.
194
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5277-78, para. 48-49.  
195
Id. at 5277-78, para. 48; see 26 U.S.C. § 63 (defining taxable income).  The Commission noted that taxable 
income includes allowable deductions for disability-related and medical expenses for individuals who itemize their 
deductions and, for individuals who do not itemize deductions, an additional standard deduction for individuals who 
are blind.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5277, para. 48.  The Commission also noted that these itemized 
and standard deductions may help to ameliorate the burden of such expenses incurred by individuals who are deaf-
blind and result in less taxable income.  Id.  
196
Id.  For example, the Commission asked whether non-taxable municipal bond income and mortgage interest
deductions should be considered.  Id.
197
Id. at 5277-78, para. 48.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
31
70. After a careful review of this issue, we decline to base eligibility on an applicant’s 
taxable income in the permanent NDBEDP.  We recognize that there is support from several commenters 
for this approach because it may allow additional individuals into this program.
198
  However, we believe 
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, we are 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.  We also agree with Perkins that the “more 
complex the formula the greater the chances are of errors” in calculating income.
199
  By focusing on total 
income, the income verification process will be simplified, consistent, and less prone to errors.  
200
71. We therefore affirm the guidance initially issued by the Bureau during the pilot program, 
which mirrors that used by our Lifeline program, and will continue our 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.
201
72. Household Income.  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.”
202
  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 
                                                     
198
See CAAG Comments at 10 (supporting the use of taxable income because “Deaf-Blind individuals often have 
high medical and disability-related costs”); IDBI Comments at 15; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 5; SRC/CBVI 
Comments at 4. 
199
Perkins Comments at 21.
200
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), “[f]ederal, state, and local program 
offices that use the poverty guidelines for eligibility purposes may define income in different ways,” and “some 
agencies compare before-tax income to the poverty guidelines, while other agencies compare after-tax income.”  
DHHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Frequently Asked Questions Related to the 
Poverty Guidelines and Poverty (Sept. 3, 2015) https://aspe.hhs.gov/frequently-asked-questions-related-poverty-
guidelines-and-poverty.  Nevertheless, our research failed to uncover any precedent for using taxable income to 
determine eligibility to participate in a federal subsidy program.
201
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5275, 5278, para. 44, n.147; see also NDBEDP FAQ 23; 47 CFR 
§ 54.400(f) (defining “income” for the Commission’s Lifeline program).
202
NDBEDP FAQ 23; see also 47 CFR § 54.400(f) (defining “income” for the Commission’s Lifeline program).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
32
parents or guardians are considered to be part of the same household as 
their parents or guardians.
203
  
73. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we explained that some parties responding to the 
Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice had expressed concerns about the Commission’s use of household 
income in lieu of personal income to determine income eligibility for the NDBEDP.  These parties 
alleged that attributing a multi-person household’s income to an applicant might overstate the applicant’s 
income and inappropriately result in disqualification if the applicant was not financially dependent on 
others in the household.  We 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, we 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.
204
  
74. Commenters generally support this clarification, to ensure that otherwise qualified 
applicants are not harmed due to household arrangements.
205
  We agree 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, we conclude 
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, we clarify 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, we 
continue 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.
206
  
E. Verification of Income Eligibility
75. 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.
207
  Based on support in the record and our experience with the pilot program, we conclude 
                                                     
203
NDBEDP FAQ 24; see also 47 CFR § 54.400(h) (defining “household” for the Commission’s Lifeline program).  
204
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5278, para. 49. 
205
See CAAG Comments at 10 (people living in same multi-person home may not be an “economic unit”); HKNC 
Comments at 5 (stating that the clarification will “improve the program”); IDBI Comments at 15; Perkins 
Comments at 21 (agreeing that the clarification is helpful, but noting that “it may unfairly penalize an elderly, 
otherwise-eligible consumer who receives housing and support from an adult child”); SRC/CBVI Comments at 4.
206
We believe that this outcome effectively addresses the concerns of commenters who urge income eligibility 
determinations to turn solely on an individual’s personal income, rather than household income, out of a concern 
that applicants who are not financially dependent may be unfairly disqualified from the program if household 
income, rather than personal income, is used for the income determination.  See ATI Comments 3; ATK Comments 
at 3; ATLA Comments at 3; IOD Comments at 4; WATAP Comments at 4.  
207
The NDBEDP Administrator may identify qualifying state or federal subsidy programs in addition to the specific 
qualifying federal subsidy programs discussed below.  In addition, as discussed below, certified programs verify 
low-income eligibility by other means for applicants who are not enrolled in a qualifying program. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
33
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.
208
  Thus, we 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 demonstrating that the applicant receives benefits from a qualifying assistance program.
209
  
76. To promote consistency across the NDBEDP and Lifeline programs and increase 
efficiency, we 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.
210
  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.
211
  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.
212
  
77. We will continue to require certified programs to verify low-income eligibility for 
applicants who are not enrolled in a qualifying program by using appropriate and reasonable means.
213
  
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 
                                                     
208
See ACB Comments at 1 (“[I]ndividuals who are receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance or Medicaid 
should be deemed presumptively eligible upon providing verification of enrollment in either of these programs.”); 
Perkins Comments at 23 (“[T]he Commission should continue permitting individuals enrolled in federal subsidy 
programs with income thresholds lower than 400% of the FPG to be deemed income eligible for the NDBEDP.”);
see also NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5279, para. 51 (seeking comment on retaining this provision); 
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5657, para. 39; 47 CFR § 54.409(a)-(b) (Lifeline regulations). 
209
See 47 CFR § 54.410(c)(1)(i)(B).
210
Under the pilot program rules, federal subsidy programs satisfying the income requirements of the NDBEDP 
have included the Federal Public Housing Assistance or Section 8; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
formerly known as Food Stamps; Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; Medicaid; National School 
Lunch Program’s free lunch program; Supplemental Security Income; and Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families.  47 CFR § 64.610(d)(2).  The Commission recently streamlined these for the Lifeline program, deleting 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, National School Lunch Program, and Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, and adding Veterans Pension benefits.  Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; 
Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Connect America Fund, Third Report and 
Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4021, para. 167 (2016) (2016
Lifeline Modernization Order). 
211
2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 4021, para. 167.
212
See 47 CFR § 64.610(d)(2) (pilot program rule).
213
See id. at § 64.610(d)(2); see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5658, para. 39; 47 CFR 
§ 64.610(e)(1)(ii) (requiring certified programs to obtain verification that applicants meet the NDBEDP income 
eligibility requirements); NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5279, para. 51.  Commenters generally supported 
continuation of this requirement.  See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 15 (suggesting that such appropriate and reasonable 
means could include a review of the individual’s most recent income tax return); Perkins Comments at 23 
(suggesting that the certified programs should be reasonable in their documentation requirements).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
34
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.
214
  
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.”
215
  
78. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on requiring a third party to verify an 
applicant’s income.
216
  We decline to adopt this requirement at this time.  We are 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.
217
  Because certified programs under the NDBEDP have been allocated a limited amount of 
funds, we believe 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, we find that requiring certified 
programs to individually verify income eligibility is an appropriate method to accomplish income 
verification for this program at this time.  However, we will continue to monitor certified program 
operations to evaluate the need for a third party to verify applicant eligibility in the future.
218
  
79. Finally, in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 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.
219
  Commenters generally recognize that income 
                                                     
214
47 CFR § 54.410(b)(1)(i)(B); see also AADB Comments at 2; IDBI Comments at 15-16 (supporting using a 
variety of documents as evidence of low income); Perkins Comments at 23 (stating that, when an applicant does not 
have a tax return, “other acceptable documentation to prove income eligibility should be accepted by certified 
programs”).  
215
47 CFR § 54.410(b)(1)(i)(B); see also IDBI Comments at 15-16.  In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the 
Commission delegated to the Wireline Competition Bureau the responsibility to work with USAC to develop new 
forms, update or revise current forms, and retire forms for applicants to establish identity and eligibility for the 
Lifeline program.  See 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 4017, para. 150.  As that effort 
progresses, we direct the Bureau (1) to assess whether use of any new Lifeline documentation forms would be 
appropriate for applicants to submit data to establish income eligibility to participate in the NDBEDP and (2) to 
update the guidance the Bureau provides to certified programs with respect to income eligibility documentation, as 
needed. 
216
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5279, para. 51.
217
See HKNC Comments at 5 (“Asking a third party to verify income would negatively impact the program and 
slow down services.”); IDBI Comments at 15 (suggesting that using a third-party service could result in cost 
savings, but that certified programs should decide whether to use such a third-party); Perkins Comments at 23 
(arguing that income verification by certified programs is reasonable and reliable, and asserting that third-party 
verification would be burdensome and slow down the application process); SRC/CBVI Comments at 4 (asserting 
that third-party verification would result in additional burdens on certified programs, applicants, and the application 
process).
218
For example, we may consider the appropriateness of using the National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier, a third party 
database that will be used to verify the eligibility of Lifeline applicants.  See 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, 31 
FCC Rcd at 4006, para. 126; see also Equifax Workforce Solutions (Equifax) Comments at 1 (describing its third 
party income verification processes).  
219
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5279, para. 51.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
35
does change over time and agree that re-verification of income eligibility after one year is reasonable.
220
  
We concur and adopt this requirement for the permanent NDBEDP.
F. Other Eligibility Requirements and Considerations
80. 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.
221
  
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.
222
  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.
223
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to retain this rule for 
the permanent NDBEDP.
224
  Commenters agree.
225
  We continue 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.
81. Employment.  The pilot program rules prohibit certified programs from imposing 
employment-related eligibility requirements for individuals to participate in the program.
226
  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.
227
  Commenters support retention of this rule for the permanent 
NDBEDP.
228
  We agree, and note as well that there is no statutory basis for such a requirement under the 
CVAA.
229
  For the reasons stated in NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, we will therefore retain this rule for 
the permanent NDBEDP.
230
  
82. 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.
231
  Nonetheless, in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 
                                                     
220
See CDBP Comments at 4; IDBI Comments at 16 (recognizing that income changes over time); HKNC 
Comments at 5; Perkins Comments at 23.
221
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5658, para. 42.
222
47 CFR § 64.610(d)(4) (pilot program rule).
223
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5658-59, para. 42.
224
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5280, para. 53.
225
See, e.g., Perkins Comments at 23 (suggesting that consumers without services in their homes be required to 
explain their plans for obtaining service); IDBI Comments at 16; DRM Reply Comments at 25.  
226
47 CFR § 64.610(d)(3).
227
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5659, para. 44.
228
See HKNC Comments at 6 (stating that to require employment would cut participants by more than half); IDBI 
Comments at 16; Perkins Comments at 23; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 5; DRM Reply Comments at 25; see 
also NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5279, para. 54 (proposing to retain this rule).
229
See 47 U.S.C. § 620; NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5659, para. 44.
230
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5659, para. 44.
231
Id. at 5659, para. 43.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
36
proposed that a certified program be permitted to focus its NDBEDP resources to meet the needs of low-
income deaf-blind adults when other resources, such as a state’s education department, are available to 
provide deaf-blind children with the communications equipment and related services they need.
232
  This 
approach would be consistent with the principle that the NDBEDP supplements rather than supplants 
other resources.  When those communications needs are not being met through other available resources, 
however, we proposed to require certified programs to serve eligible applicants of any age.
233
83. Commenters generally support our proposal, noting the need to communicate, regardless 
of age.
234
  Yet CDBP states that a child should “be developmentally ready, willing and able to use 
distance communication to participate” in the NDBEDP.
235
  We agree 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.
236
  We further agree that the permanent NDBEDP should not 
impose mandatory age thresholds.  Rather, we direct 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.  
V. EQUIPMENT AND RELATED SERVICES
A. Equipment
84. As authorized by Section 719 of the Act,
237
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,
238
Internet access service,
239
and advanced communications 
services,
240
including interexchange services
241
and advanced telecommunications and information 
                                                     
232
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5281, para. 57. 
233
Id.
234
See ACB Comments at 1; CDBP Comments at 4-5 (suggesting that age limits would “thwart the program’s 
objectives”); HKNC Comments at 6 (stating that the NDBEDP “also benefits youths, transition age young adults 
and seniors”); IDBI Comments at 17; Perkins Comments at 25 (asserting that certified programs should serve 
eligible applicants of any age and assure that NDBEDP funds do not supplant education, vocational rehabilitation, 
veteran services, or other available resources).
235
CDBP Comments at 4 (noting that “[t]he standard applied for minors to participate in iCanConnect Wisconsin is 
a developmental threshold, not a particular age attainment”).
236
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5690, para. 115; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 
5281, para. 57.
237
47 U.S.C. § 620(a).
238
“Telecommunications service” is defined in the Act as “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to 
the public, or to such classes of users as to effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities 
used.”  47 U.S.C. § 153(53).  “Telecommunications” is further defined as “the transmission, between or among 
points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the 
information as sent and received.”  47 U.S.C. § 153(50). 
239
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5660, n. 138 (explaining that the Controlling the Assault of 
Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 defines “Internet access service” as “a service that enables 
users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also 
include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to 
consumers” (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 231(e)(4)). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
37
services,
242
collectively referred to as “covered services,” accessible to low-income people who are deaf-
blind.
243
85. In the NDBEDP pilot program rules, the Commission determined that under the above 
provision, reimbursement can be provided to state programs for “[h]ardware, 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.
244
  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.
245
  
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.
246
  
Certified programs have been allowed to lend or transfer ownership of the distributed equipment to 
eligible recipients,
247
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.
248
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
240
“Advanced communications services” is defined to include “interconnected VoIP service,” “non-interconnected 
VoIP service,” “electronic messaging service,” and “interoperable video conferencing service.”  47 U.S.C. § 153(1); 
see also 47 CFR § 9.3 (defining “interconnected VoIP service”); 47 U.S.C. § 153(36) (defining “non-interconnected 
VoIP service”), § 153(19) (defining “electronic messaging service”), § 153(27) (defining “interoperable video 
conferencing service”).
241
“Interexchange services” are generally services between local exchanges in different geographic areas (local 
access and transport areas, otherwise known as LATAs).  Traditionally, these have been commonly called long-
distance services.  See Union Telephone Co. v. Qwest Corp., No. 02-CV-209-D, 2004 WL 4960741 (D.Wyo. Sept. 
3, 2004) at 2 (“long distance” (also known as “toll” or “interexchange”) service refers to service offered to 
subscribers that permits them to place (or originate) calls that terminate outside of their local calling area).  
242
“Information service” is defined as “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, 
processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic 
publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a 
telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.”  47 U.S.C. § 153(24).
243
See 47 U.S.C. § 620(a).  These services include, inter alia, voice, data and video services provided over the 
Internet, along with equipment needed to access more traditional telephone-based wireline and wireless services.  
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5660, para. 45.
244
47 CFR § 64.610(c)(1) (defining “equipment” for purposes of the NDBEDP), § 64.610(f)(1) (authorizing 
payment to certified programs for the reasonable cost of NDBEDP equipment distributed and related services 
provided).  In the permanent program rules, we introduce the term “Covered Services” to designate the 
telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced communications services with which reimbursable “equipment” 
may be used.  See infra Appendix D (Final Rules) (adding Section 64.6203(a) and (b) to define “Covered Services” 
and “Equipment”).  In order to provide consistency with the Commission’s terminology used in part 14 of the rules 
for advanced communications services, we use the term “advanced communications services.”  47 CFR § 14.10(c).  
245
47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2)(i), (iv); see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5673-74, paras. 75-76;
NDBEDP Expenses at 1-2.  These have included the costs of returning the equipment to a distribution center and 
returning it to the consumer once it is refurbished or upgraded.
246
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(2) (pilot program rule).
247
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5665-66, paras. 57-59.  
248
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(iii) (requiring certified programs to permit the transfer of an equipment recipient’s 
account and equipment to or from another state’s NDBEDP certified program when the recipient moves).  However, 
consumers have not been permitted to transfer equipment received under the NDBEDP to another person through 
sale or otherwise. 47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(v); see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5666, para. 
59. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
38
86. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we tentatively concluded that each of these provisions 
governing equipment and equipment-related expenses should be retained in the permanent NDBEDP,
249
and sought comment on questions related to the reimbursement of such expenses.
250
  For the reasons 
discussed below, we adopt our tentative conclusion to retain these pilot program rules because we believe 
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.  The few 
commenters that opined on these matters support this approach, and no commenters oppose it.
251
87. Allowable Equipment.  Under the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission has not 
placed restrictions on the “specific brands, models, or types of technology, including hardware, software, 
and applications, separately or in combination,” that is reimbursable under the NDBEDP.
252
  The 
Commission has recognized that “the communication and technology needs of individuals who are deaf-
blind are as unique as the individuals themselves and the combinations of vision and hearing loss found in 
this population.”
253
  Additionally, during the pilot program, the Commission has permitted certified 
programs to distribute multiple pieces of equipment to eligible consumers, as needed, within the 
constraints of their annual funding allocation, and the desire to make communications accessible for as 
many individuals who are deaf-blind as possible.
254
  As a result, during the NDBEDP pilot program, 
certified programs distributed a wide range of equipment, including Braille devices, computers, mobile 
devices, phones, signalers, and software.
255
88. We retain the pilot program’s definition of “equipment” for purposes of determining 
reimbursable expenses under the permanent NDBEDP.  In so doing, we affirm our 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 refers specifically to “specialized customer premises equipment,” we adopt a broad 
interpretation of this term because we find 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.”
256
  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.
257
89. We find sufficient authority to adopt this approach.  First, we note that under the plain 
language of the statute, we are permitted to give funding to “programs” that distribute SCPE.
258
  
                                                     
249
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5291, para. 74.
250
Id. at 5291-94, paras. 73-79.
251
See, e.g., HKNC Comments at 8; IDBI Comments at 20 (each generally supporting retention of the equipment 
distribution provisions of the NDBEDP pilot program).
252
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5663, para. 52.
253
Id.  
254
Id. at 5664-65, para. 55.  
255
See, e.g., iCanConnect, Equipment, http://www.icanconnect.org/equipment (last visited July 15, 2016) (providing 
general information about and examples of equipment provided under the NDBEDP).
256
S. Rep. at 1; H. Rep. No. 111-563 at 19 (2010) (H. Rep.).
257
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5664, para. 53.  
258
Section 719 states that “the Commission shall establish rules that define as eligible for relay service support those 
programs that are approved by the Commission for the distribution of specialized customer premises equipment 
designed to make [communications and information services] accessible by low-income individuals who are deaf-
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
39
Accordingly, as in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, we conclude 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.”
259
  As we 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.
260
  In 
addition, such equipment is often easier to procure and to support than CPE that is designed for use solely 
by people with disabilities.  We further conclude that the underlying purpose of Section 719 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.
261
90. We also note that recent developments have brought many types of mainstream 
equipment within the Commission’s current definitions of SCPE.  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.
262
  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
263
– 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.  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 – 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.
264
  Such accessible mainstream devices, then, could be said to be one type of 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
blind.”  47 U.S.C. § 620(a) (emphasis added); see also S. Rep. at 3 (the FCC has authority to “financially support 
programs that distribute specialized customer premises equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind”); 
S. Rep. at 10; H. Rep. at 27 (the latter two stating:  “This section authorizes the Commission to support programs 
that distribute specialized customer premises equipment at subsidized rates to low-income individuals who are deaf-
blind.”).
259
S. Rep. at 3.
260
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5664, para. 53.
261
Especially in light of the statutory limitation of funding to $10 million annually, an interpretation of Section 719 
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 us from supporting the distribution of non-
SCPE devices that have built-in SCPE features (e.g., magnification software).  We expect that the interpretation we 
adopt today will instead expand the number of consumers who are able to be served with such limited allocations of 
funding.
262
47 CFR §§ 6.3(i), 7.3(i), 14.10(f), (u).  These definitions were cited in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order.  
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5660, para. 45.  Because SCPE is not defined in Section 719 (or 
elsewhere in the Act), we find that it is reasonable to define this term consistently with the existing definitions of 
SCPE in the Commission’s rules.
263
47 U.S.C. §§ 255, 617, 619.  
264
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, Biennial Report to Congress as Required by the 
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 29 FCC Rcd 11909, 11931-34, paras. 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
40
SCPE that are designed to make covered services accessible by low-income individuals who are deaf-
blind under Section 719.  
91. We agree with commenters who support maintaining the flexibility given to certified 
programs to determine the types of qualifying equipment most appropriate for their eligible residents.
265
In the permanent NDBEDP, we 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.
266
92. Commenters support, and we agree, 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.”
267
  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.
268
93. For these same reasons, we 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.
269
  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
40-42 (2014) (finding an increase in the availability of accessible telecommunications devices, and that industry has 
undertaken efforts to ensure that equipment used for advanced communications services, including web browsers 
built into mobile phones, are accessible). 
265
See, e.g., DRM Reply Comments at 37 (advocating for flexibility on equipment type and frequency needed to 
meet the needs of individuals in their communities); HKNC Comments at 8; IDBI Comments at 20; Perkins 
Comments at 35.  Because of the diverse communication needs within the deaf-blind population, certified programs 
typically conduct assessments of each applicant to determine the type of devices that best fit that individual’s needs. 
See infra Part V.B (Assessments).
266
See iCanConnect, Equipment, http://www.icanconnect.org/equipment (last visited July 15, 2016).  The many 
tools available reflect the range of needs, including accessories such as specialized keyboards, mounts, switches, 
headsets and other support devices; Braille equipment that include a wide variety of refreshable displays and 
sophisticated multipurpose devices; computers and monitors; mobile devices such as cell phones, smartphones, 
tablets, and associated accessories; telephones such as amplified speaker phones, cordless phones, and related 
devices that connect to landline telephone service; audible, visual, and vibrating signalers that alert the user to a 
phone ringing or an incoming message in text; and software, such as screen readers and screen magnifier programs.
267
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5665, para. 55; IDBI Comments at 20 (placing limits on the 
number of devices that can be given to eligible individuals “might impede their ability to benefit from the program” 
and “would be inconsistent with the goal of the program to ensure access to communications services”); Laura 
White (White) Comments at 2 (“Because of the pieces of equipment I need for independent living, there is a huge 
expense that would make it hard for me to purchase necessary equipment on my own without the support of . . . 
iCanConnect.”); DRM Reply Comments at 37; HKNC Comments at 8; Perkins Comments at 35. 
268
The flexibility to meet the applicants’ individual needs is necessary to ensure effective access to communication 
services.  See 47 U.S.C. § 620(a) (directing the Commission to allow TRS funds to support programs that make 
modern communications accessible by eligible individuals who are deaf-blind); 47 CFR § 64.610(e)(2) (banning
restrictions on types of communications technology that a recipient may receive under the NDBEDP pilot program).  
269
See 47 CFR § 64.610(e)(2)(i)-(ii) (pilot program rules).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
41
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, as needed by those 
individuals.”
270
  We believe that this requirement has helped to ensure consumer choice and access to the 
full spectrum of NDBEDP-covered services during the pilot program.
271
  We stress, however, that 
reimbursable equipment must be needed by the specific applicant who is deaf-blind to achieve access to 
covered services.
272
As explained in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the same piece of equipment may be 
suitable for one individual, yet inappropriate for another.
273
  Further, equipment that does not enable 
access to covered services cannot be funded by the NDBEDP.
274
  We 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.  To aid reimbursement 
certainty, we 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.
275
  
We note that various commenters support this consultation policy.
276
  
94. 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.
277
  We 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 
                                                     
270
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5663, para. 52.  
271
See id. at 5661-62, paras. 47-48; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5291, para. 74 (proposing to retain these 
prohibitions for the permanent program).
272
See infra Appendix D (Final Rules) (adding Section 64.6203(b)).
273
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5292-93, para. 77.
274
The NDBEDP does not cover equipment that facilitate other life functions (e.g., hearing aids, wheelchairs).  See 
NDBEDP Expenses at 3.  Cf. White Comments at 3 (proposing that the NDBEDP provide guidance to consumers 
who need to obtain or replace expensive hearing aids that are needed to access telecommunications, advanced 
communications, and the Internet). 
275
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5293, para. 77 (seeking comment on whether the Commission should 
continue this practice).  Guidance about costs that are currently reimbursable or not reimbursable is also available.  
See NDBEDP Expenses.
276
See DRM Reply Comments at 38; IDBI Comments at 21; Perkins Comments at 37.  Perkins notes that some 
consumers have offered to contribute to the costs associated with equipment upgrades, and asks that we provide 
state programs the discretion to allow this.  However, as Perkins acknowledges, the administrative burdens 
associated with enabling consumers to pay the difference in cost for such upgrades may be considerable, and such 
upgrades may result in additional differences in service maintenance agreements, warranties, and other equipment-
related costs.  Perkins Comments at 20.  Therefore, and because we are mindful of commenters’ desire for parity 
among certified programs, we decline to allow consumers to pay certified programs the difference in cost to upgrade 
equipment distributed by the program.  We do not address the extent to which an equipment recipient may pay an 
entity other than the certified program the difference in cost to upgrade equipment distributed by the program, but 
there may be instances when doing so is permissible.  For example, when a certified program transfers ownership of 
equipment to the recipient, the recipient can purchase and download additional software to the device, add memory, 
or take similar actions to upgrade the equipment.
277
See 47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2)(i), (iv); see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5673-74, paras. 75-
76; NDBEDP Expenses at 1-2.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
42
covered under warranties are eligible for reimbursement” as “necessary components of an effective 
NDBEDP.”
278
  Further, as we have for the pilot program, we 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.
279
  To keep current with changes in technology and individual needs, we continue to see 
merit in reimbursing certified programs for the reasonable costs of equipment refurbishments and 
upgrades, to ensure consumers have up-to-date equipment.
280
  Finally, to help ensure accessible 
communications in the event that equipment is in need of repair, we continue to encourage certified 
programs to maintain an inventory of equipment for loan to consumers.
281
  In addition, we recognize that 
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.  We agree 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, we include a provision in the 
permanent NDBEDP rules to make clear that loaner equipment in inventories may be used for this 
purpose.
282
  
95. Cost Efficiencies and Reassessments.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked how to 
achieve cost efficiencies in the NDBEDP, and whether the Commission should require certified programs 
to reassess the communication needs of an equipment recipient when developmental, medical or other 
changes causes that person’s equipment to no longer meet his or her needs.
283
  Commenters confirm that 
significant changes in hearing, vision, or medical status may trigger the need for reassessment and new 
equipment,
284
and generally support a reassessment when such changes might affect an individual’s need 
for communications devices.
285
  We encourage 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.
286
  We further direct 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.  
We also direct 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.  We expect that the ability to analyze reporting and reimbursement claims 
                                                     
278
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5673, para. 75.  As the Commission has done in the pilot 
program, we continue to encourage certified programs to obtain warranties for any equipment costing over $5,000, 
but permit warranties for equipment of lesser value.  Id. at 5673-74, para. 76.
279
See id. at 5673, para. 75.  
280
See id. at 5665, para. 56.  The Seattle Lighthouse suggests establishing “a recycling program of unused, 
unwanted, and obsolete equipment with proceeds to benefit DeafBlind equipment and training programs.”  Seattle 
Lighthouse Comments at 7.  Rather than automatically resell or recycle unused, unwanted, or obsolete equipment, 
and consistent with our experience during the pilot program, we believe it would be preferable for certified 
programs to assess the value of unused or returned equipment to determine whether it should be refurbished, 
redistributed, transferred to another program, resold, recycled, or if none of the foregoing are feasible, discarded.
281
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5673, para. 75.  
282
See infra Appendix D (Final Rules) (adding Section 64.6213(c)(4)).
283
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5292, para. 74.
284
See, e.g., Perkins Comments at 35.  
285
See IDBI Comments at 20; White Comments at 1 (“I was diagnosed with Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) with Usher 
Syndrome.  With this disease my vision and hearing will deteriorate as time goes by and my needs will change in 
what equipment I will need to stay independent.”). 
286
See Perkins Comments at 35.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
43
through the newly created NDBEDP central database will enable improved program oversight in this 
regard.
287
  
96. 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,
288
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.  Our 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, we 
will retain these for the permanent NDBEDP
289
97. 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.
290
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to retain this 
flexibility in the permanent program.
291
  We conclude that the term “distribute” used in Section 719 is 
broad enough to encompass both lending and transfer of ownership.  Further, we have found that 
consumers have been served well both by programs that lend equipment and by those that transfer 
ownership of the equipment.
292
  We continue 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.
293
  For those programs that choose to lend equipment, we also will 
continue to require that recipients be permitted to keep their devices for as long as needed.
294
                                                     
287
See infra Part VII.E (NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement).  We received few other 
comments on how to improve cost efficiencies.  Perkins claims that “the NDBEDP Administrator’s process for 
reviewing equipment reimbursement requests identifies equipment purchase anomalies and assures that equipment 
purchases are cost effective.”  Perkins Comments at 35.  Other commenters oppose a rule that would require 
programs to purchase equipment from a single entity to create greater efficiencies.  See, e.g., HKNC Comments at 4 
(claiming that this would limit choices, result in delays, and fail to consider other factors, such as the need for 
ongoing troubleshooting support and technical assistance); LightHouse Comments at 6 (advocating for each certified 
program “to remain autonomous” with respect to the purchase of equipment to be able to act quickly and respond to 
unanticipated equipment needs).  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, we agree 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.
288
47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2) (pilot program rule).  
289
In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission proposed that this requirement be carried into the permanent 
program.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5293, para. 77.  This requirement is supported in the record by 
those who addressed this issue.  See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 21; Perkins Comments at 37.
290
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5665-66, paras. 57-59.  Loaned equipment would be owned by 
the certified program distributing that equipment.
291
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5290-91, paras. 73-74.
292
See, e.g., iCanConnect News, http://www.icanconnect.org/news (last visited July 18, 2015) (providing numerous 
examples of how individuals have benefitted from a variety of certified equipment distribution programs). 
293
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5666, para. 58.  
294
See id. at 5666, para. 59.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
44
98. 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.
295
  In 
the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we would retain this prohibition.
296
  Given that 
the NDBEDP is a federal program with limited resources, and there is support for this prohibition in the 
record,
297
we will retain it for the permanent NDBEDP.  
99. Notice to Equipment Applicants.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 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.
298
  Commenters support an 
attestation for both of these purposes.
299
  We conclude 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 personally identifiable information for semiannual reporting and 
other purposes of administration and operation of the NDBEDP,
300
as well as the need to comply with 
Commission rules and the consequences of failing to do so, we require 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).  
                                                     
295
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(v); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5666, para. 59.
296
Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 5293-94, paras. 78-79.  
297
CDBP Comments at 5; Perkins Comments at 38; SRC/CBVI Comments at 4.  But see DRM Reply Comments at 
39 (noting that its lending form includes comparable language, and changes are not necessary.)
298
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5315-16, para. 122. 
299
IDBI Comments at 21-22, 28; Perkins Comments at 38, 56.
300
SRC/CBVI reports that, consistent with its obligations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996 (HIPAA), they require NDBEDP clients to “sign a form acknowledging that some of their information 
is being submitted to the FCC.”  Id. at 3; see also infra Part VII.E.3 (Inclusion and Protection of Personally 
Identifiable Information in the Centralized Database).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
45
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.
301
100. We also asked in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM whether certified programs should be 
required to verify on a regular basis that equipment continues to reside in the recipient’s possession, 
noting the possible burdens of such a requirement.
302
Commenters oppose such a requirement, asserting 
that it is not necessary, would cause programs to incur an expensive administrative cost, and is 
impractical, given the short lifecycle of much equipment.
303
  We agree 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.  We therefore will not impose this 
requirement.
101. 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.
304
The receiving state’s program has had a 
corresponding requirement to accept this transfer.
305
  As proposed in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we will 
retain this provision in the permanent program because it reduces the need for individuals to reapply to 
the NDBEDP upon relocating.
306
102. Equipment Listings.  We sought comment in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM on how certified 
programs may be kept apprised of the various types of equipment eligible for distribution under the 
NDBEDP.
307
  We observed that the iCanConnect website, 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 
                                                     
301
Perkins also suggests that “certified programs include language in the consumer application that specifies 
consumers’ responsibilities to safeguard equipment.”  Perkins Comments at 38.  We will permit, though do 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.
302
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5293-94, para. 79.
303
Perkins Comments at 38 (expected life of equipment given to applicants “may be as little as three years”); 
SRC/CBVI Comments at 4-5; DRM Reply Comments at 39 (frequent upgrades resulting from the “evolution of 
technology affords ample opportunity to monitor and confirm appropriate use of the equipment”); CDBP Comments 
at 5 (suggesting that such verification should be done automatically when the consumer requests additional 
services).
304
See 47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(iii).  We note that a program that transfers ownership of the distributed equipment to 
the recipient does not retain any title to or control over the equipment.  Only when a program lends the equipment to 
the recipient does it retain any title to or control.  In such instances, the former state program would transfer any 
such remaining title and control to the new state program.  If the new state program lends equipment, the recipient 
might be required (e.g., considering factors such as the age and condition of the equipment) to return the loaned 
equipment to the new state program.  Alternatively, the new state program could choose to transfer ownership of the 
distributed equipment to the recipient when that consumer relocates to its state. 
305
Id. at § 64.610(e)(1)(iv) (pilot program rule).
306
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5666, para. 59; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5290, 
para. 74 (proposing to retain these requirements for the permanent NDBEDP). 
307
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5291-92, paras. 74-76.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
46
deaf-blind.
308
  We also sought comment on whether the equipment listed on the iCanConnect website 
should provide other functionalities, such as the ability to select and compare devices, or to comment on 
the equipment listed.
309
103. Commenters generally support the continued availability of an equipment list on the 
iCanConnect website that would be available to the general public.
310
  Commenters also support 
providing the additional functionalities proposed, but note that this interactivity would necessitate 
monitoring, in order to ensure accuracy, objectivity and decorum, which would create an added 
expense.”
311
  Perkins notes that other forums exist for reviews and personal commentary
312
  
104. Based on the record before us and our experience during the pilot program, we conclude 
that general information about and examples of equipment provided as part of the iCanConnect website 
serves an important purpose and should be kept up to date as part of the NDBEDP national outreach 
efforts.
313
  Since the release of the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the equipment list on the iCanConnect website 
has been updated quarterly, which we believe is reasonable.
314
  We do not at this time require the 
iCanConnect website to provide other functionalities, such as the ability to compare and contrast different 
communication devices or to comment on the equipment listed.  We believe that the cost to develop and 
maintain such features (such as moderating input from multiple sources) outweighs the potential benefits.  
105. In the 2015 NDBEDP NPRM, we cautioned that equipment featured on the iCanConnect 
website may not be appropriate for all program participants, which can only be determined by an 
individualized needs assessment.
315
  Commenters agree, noting that the equipment list on the 
iCanConnect website should not be treated as a shopping list.
316
  We adopt our proposal that the 
iCanConnect website 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 
                                                     
308
Id. at 5292, para. 76; see also infra Part V.F (Outreach); iCanConnect, Equipment, 
http://www.icanconnect.org/equipment (last visited July 15, 2016).
309
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5292, para. 76.
310
See, e.g., CDBP Comments at 5; IDBI Comments at 21 (supporting keeping the equipment list on the 
iCanConnect website “reasonably up to date, though it need not be exhaustive”); LightHouse Comments at 5; 
Perkins Comments at 36 (stating that “[e]quipment listings on the iCanConnect website can provide helpful 
information for consumers and others involved in the program”).
311
DRM Reply Comments at 38; IDBI Comments at 21; Perkins Comments at 37.
312
Perkins Comments at 37 (noting manufacturer websites and other public forums); see also CDBP Comments at 5 
(“There is an online deaf-blind techie group, http://groups.google.com/group/dbtechies?hl=en, whereby individuals
can discuss various technologies available to one who is deaf-blind.”).
313
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5292, para. 76 (seeking comment on this aspect of the iCanConnect 
website, and acknowledging that it may difficult to ensure that this list is exhaustive, given the speed with which 
technology evolves).
314
See iCanConnect, Equipment, http://www.icanconnect.org/equipment (last visited July 15, 2016) (“This list will 
be updated on a quarterly basis.”).
315
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5292-93, para. 77.
316
LightHouse Comments at 5; Perkins Comments at 36-37 (noting that individualized assessments should be a 
“collaborative process” and recommending that “the person who is deaf-blind and a qualified assessor . . . define the 
individual’s distance communication goals and select the best equipment to meet those goals”); see also CDBP 
Comments at 5. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
47
assessment and be consistent with the NDBEDP rules.
317
  The following notice, which currently appears 
on the iCanConnect website,
318
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 website 
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.
319
B. Assessments
106. 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.
320
  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.
321
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we tentatively concluded that 
individual assessments are a continued necessity, and that assessment-related travel should continue to be 
reimbursed.
322
  
107. Given our experience under the pilot program and support in the record, we affirm these 
tentative conclusions.
323
  We conclude, as the Commission concluded in the NDBEDP Pilot Program 
                                                     
317
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5293, para. 77.
318
iCanConnect, Equipment, http://www.icanconnect.org/equipment (last visited July 15, 2016) (providing general 
information about and examples of Braille devices, computers, mobile devices, phones, signalers, and software).
319
We note 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.  See NDBEDP 
2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5292, para. 75.  Along these lines, to the extent technologically feasible, we believe 
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.  See Perkins Comments at 36 (asserting that a list generated in 
this fashion can advance “valuable knowledge sharing” among programs nationwide); SRC/CBVI Comments at 4 
(noting that “it will be helpful to individual programs to see the types of equipment other programs are purchasing 
for their clients).”  Accordingly, we direct the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator to consider including this 
query function in the centralized database.  See infra Part VII.E (NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and 
Reimbursement).  To the extent that such database contains information about distributed equipment, we further 
direct inclusion of the notice specified above, pertaining to the need for individualized assessments and compliance 
with the Commission’s rules.
320
47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2)(ii); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5668, para. 65.
321
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5668, para. 65; see also NDBEDP Expenses at 1.  Travel 
costs in connection with assessments, including hourly fees earned by assessors while traveling to appointments, 
totaled $163,637, or 1.85% of total NDBEDP program and administrative costs in 2013-2014 (Year 2), and 
$141,611, or 1.70% of total NDBEDP program and administrative costs in 2014-2015 (Year 3).  See infra Appendix 
C (Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures). 
322
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5287, para. 69.
323
See, e.g., AADB Comments at 2; CAAG Comments at 5; CDBP Comments at 5; HKNC Comments at 7-8; 
LightHouse Comments at 5; Perkins Comments at 32; DRM Reply Comments at 34-35.  See also ACB Comments 
at 2.  ACB identifies a number of skills that it believes program personnel conducting assessments should possess, 
including the ability to understand linguistic and cultural differences; to assess the consumer’s ability to understand 
various forms of speech output, use Braille, and type on a keyboard; and to determine which technology will work 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
48
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.
324
  Comments 
confirm the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order finding that reimbursement of such assessments is authorized 
by the statute when necessary to support the distribution of equipment by certified programs and achieve 
the goal of providing accessible communications to people who are deaf-blind.
325
  We agree that 
Section719 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, we 
conclude, is necessary to ensure that the equipment provided enables deaf-blind individuals to “utilize 
fully . . . essential advanced technologies.”
326
  We further conclude 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.
327
108. We direct 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.  Perkins notes that the varying characteristics that are unique to each consumer –
i.e., the nature and extent of the individual’s hearing and vision loss, experience with technology, and 
communication needs – as well as the assessors’ rates, travel requirements, and support services needed –
may all impact the resources needed to conduct a proper assessment.
328
  We instruct the NDBEDP 
Administrator to take these and other relevant factors into consideration in making individual 
determinations as to the reasonableness of assessment-related costs.
C. Installation and Training
109. 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.
329
  In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission found 
that having equipment set-up and providing training are essential to ensuring that deaf-blind individuals 
effectively benefit from the NDBEDP and are needed to prevent the underutilization or abandonment of 
equipment.
330
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to continue reimbursing for the reasonable 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
best for the consumer.  Id.  ACB’s list of proposed skills may serve as helpful guidance to certified programs when 
hiring or contracting personnel to conduct assessments.
324
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5668, para. 65.  
325
Id.;  see, e.g., Perkins Comments at 32 (noting that the varying characteristics that are unique to each consumer –
i.e., the nature and extent of the individual’s hearing and vision loss, experience with technology, and 
communication needs – as well as the assessors’ rates, travel requirements, and support services needed – may all 
impact the resources needed to conduct a proper assessment).  We note that in addition to comments received on the 
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, parties responding to the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice unanimously supported the 
continued reimbursement of the reasonable costs of individualized assessments, including the cost of travel by 
assessors and support services.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5287, para. 69.
326
S. Rep. at 3.
327
See HKNC Comments at 7-8 (there is value in visiting the applicant’s home to see their current technology, set-
up, lighting, work space, etc.); see also CDBP Comments at 5 (“[c]onducting assessments in the home environment 
is critical in most circumstances and justifies the continued reimbursement of reasonable travel costs for in-home 
assessments and training”); DRM Reply Comments at 35; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5287, para. 69.  
328
Perkins Comments at 32.  
329
See 47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2)(iii); see also NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670-71, para. 69.  
330
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670-71, para. 69.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
49
costs of equipment installation and consumer training, and invited comment on how to improve their cost 
effectiveness.
331
  
110. 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.
332
  We conclude, 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.
333
  We also continue 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.
334
  Finally, we find 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.
335
  
111. We therefore direct 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.  We also instruct 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.
D. Center-Based Assessments and Training
112. 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.
336
  We proposed in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM to permit, but not 
require, such consumer travel, and to reimburse certified programs for the reasonable costs associated 
with such travel.
337
  We further asked how such compensation should be evaluated, how to determine 
when such costs are permissible, and whether we should cap the allowable amount for this cost 
category.
338
  Given the limited NDBEDP funding available to each certified program, we also proposed 
                                                     
331
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5294-95, para. 81.
332
GACHI Comments at 20; IDBI Comments at 22; LightHouse Comments at 5; Perkins Comments at 39; DRM 
Reply Comments at 40.  Parties responding to the earlier Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice also overwhelming 
supported having the Commission continue to allow these costs to ensure that distributed equipment is used 
effectively.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5294, para. 81.
333
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670-71, para. 69; see also Perkins Comments at 39 
(concurring).
334
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670-71, para. 69; see also ACB Comments at 3 (explaining 
that greater amounts of training may be needed when the individual is using a new form of communication (e.g., 
ASL or Braille), when an interpreter is needed, or when the consumer is being trained to use multiple devices; Larry 
Johnson (Johnson) Comments at 1 (describing, based on personal experience, the need for more training when 
learning to use multiple devices, such as a new phone and a Braille display).
335
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670-71, para. 69; see also CDBP Comments at 5 (asserting 
that participants should not be required to have training services delivered remotely).
336
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5668, para. 65; NDBEDP Expenses at 3.  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.  For example, the NDBEDP center location could be the main office or 
a satellite office of the certified entity or one of its partners or resources.
337
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5287, 5296, paras. 70, 83.  
338
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
50
that a consumer’s travel costs be reimbursed only if these are first pre-approved by the certified program 
after a determination that the reasonable costs of this travel would be more efficient and effective than 
having the assessor or trainer travel to the consumer.
339
  Finally, we asked why a consumer might need to 
travel out-of-state for an assessment or training and whether pre-approval from the NDBEDP 
Administrator should be required for such travel to ensure that the costs are reasonable.
340
  
113. Citing benefits to consumers and improved cost efficiencies, commenters support 
covering the reasonable costs for consumers and their support service providers, when needed, to travel to 
and from an NDBEDP center for assessments and training.
341
  Benefits include the ability to try out a 
variety of equipment that may not be easily transported, improving consumer choice, and the ability to 
interact with peers during training.
342
  
114. Commenters note the cost benefits of allowing program recipients to travel to a 
centralized location, explaining that this can allow for the assistance of multiple consumers at one time, 
and thereby reduce the costs and time for travel, especially to remote areas.
343
  Commenters also state that 
bringing consumers to a location where there are greater resources, such as interpreters and other support 
services, may be more cost effective than having an assessor and support staff travel to each consumer.
344
  
115. 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, we 
believe it is in the best interest of the permanent NDBEDP to allow reimbursement for such costs, when 
                                                     
339
Id. at 5289, 5296, paras. 71, 83.  The Commission further asked for comment on specific guidelines certified 
programs should follow to make such determinations.  Id. at 5289, para. 71. 
340
Id. at 5289, 5297, paras. 71, 84.
341
The following commenters support allowing NDBEDP funding consumer travel for both center-based assessment 
and training, unless otherwise noted:  ACB Comments at 1-2; ATAP Comments at 3; ATK Comments at 4; ATLA 
Comments at 4; CAAG Comments at 5 (noting support for consumer travel for assessments); CDBP Comments at 5 
(noting support for consumer travel for training); GACHI Comments at 20 (noting support for consumer travel for 
training); HKNC Comments at 7-8; IDBI Comments at 19, 22; IOD Comments at 4; IPAT Comments at 3-4 (noting 
support for consumer travel for assessments); Johnson Comments at 1 (advocating for flexibility and consumer 
choice about where the assessment or training is conducted); LightHouse Comments at 5; MoAT Comments at 2; 
Perkins Comments at 33, 41; WATAP Comments at 4; White Comments at 2 (noting support for assessments 
conducted at an NDBEDP center to better match consumer needs by enabling them to view and test equipment); 
DRM Reply Comments at 34-35.  In addition to comments received in response to the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, most 
parties responding to the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice supported reimbursement for consumer travel to an 
NDBEDP center for assessments when doing so would be more effective for the consumer and more efficient for the 
program.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5287-88, para. 70.
342
ACB Comments at 1-2 (a variety of equipment “enables both the consumer and evaluator to find the proper fit”); 
ATAP Comments at 3; IDBI Comments at 19 (noting the need for consumers “to see and test the full spectrum of 
available equipment” to make informed choices, and considering the cost of consumer travel to be a “wise 
investment” because it will reduce the risk of equipment returns or exchanges); Johnson Comments at 1; LightHouse 
Comments at 5 (noting the benefit of forming informal user networks for additional support); MoAT Comments at 2 
(noting that, on occasion, “the option for consumers to travel would have been conducive to better meeting their 
needs”); Perkins Comments at 33, 40 (noting that covering consumer travel costs for center-based training enables 
more consumer choices and “learning strategies and tips from peers”) .
343
See HKNC Comments at 7-8 (noting that its HKNC headquarters can provide “sufficient qualified staff to 
support multiple consumers”); see also ATK Comments at 4 (opining that “in some cases it could be more cost-
effective to allow for reasonable travel costs of individuals (along with one support service provider, if needed) to 
obtain an assessment”); ATLA Comments at 4; IOD Comments at 4; Perkins Comments at 33 (“Bringing several 
consumers to a specified location with a skilled assessor can also be an effective way of providing services.”); 
WATAP Comments at 4.
344
Perkins Comments at 33; see also IDBI Comments at 19.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
51
reasonable.  As we 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.
345
In addition to this and other points made in the record, when a consumer travels to an NDBEDP 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.
346
  
116. However, we will only permit reimbursement of the costs of having a consumer travel to 
an NDBEDP center 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.
347
  We agree with commenters that the 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.
348
  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.
349
  Each certified program will have the further option to request pre-approval by the 
NDBEDP Administrator before agreeing to reimburse such costs, and will be required to obtain pre-
approval from the NDBEDP Administrator for any out-of-state consumer travel costs.
350
  
                                                     
345
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5287-88, para. 70.
346
We expect that most travel by consumers will be in-state travel.  However, we understand that in some cases, it 
may be more cost effective for a consumer to cross state lines to reach the closest center.  Perkins Comments at 34, 
41.  For example, the distance from the NDBEDP center in Watertown, Massachusetts for a consumer who lives in 
Springfield, Massachusetts is 80 miles, but only 30 miles from the NDBEDP center in Hartford, Connecticut.  
Likewise, the distance from the NDBEDP center in Parsons, Kansas for a consumer who lives in Topeka, Kansas is 
150 miles, but only 80 miles from the NDBEDP center in Blue Springs, Missouri.  As such, we agree with 
commenters that 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.  See ATAP Comments at 3; ATK Comments at 4; IDBI Comments at 20, 22; IOD 
Comments at 4; IPAT Comments at 4 (stipulating that out-of-state travel by consumers for assessments should be 
rare and only by agreement with certified entities in neighboring states); LightHouse Comments at 5; MoAT 
Comments at 2; WATAP Comments at 4.  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.
347
Parties to this proceeding support having certified programs pre-approve these expenses.  ATK Comments at 4; 
ATLA Comments at 4; IDBI Comments at 19-20, 22; IOD Comments at 4; IPAT Comments at 4 (suggesting also 
that such approval be granted on a case-by-case basis); LightHouse Comments at 5.  
348
See, e.g., DRM Reply Comments at 35.  We also agree with Perkins, that 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.  See Perkins Comments at 33, 40.  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.  See id. 
at 33-34, 40-41.  HKNC also notes that, in some cases, consumers are unable to travel.  HKNC Comments at 8.
349
See, e.g., USA.gov, Travel for Federal Employees, https://www.usa.gov/travel-for-federal-employees (last visited 
Aug. 1, 2016).
350
See IDBI Comments at 19-20 (supporting this approach); see also ATLA Comments at 4 (opposing a cap on 
consumer travel costs and requesting that the Commission consider “rural states that do not have the luxury of a road 
system” such as Alaska where “the majority of travel within the state is done by either large or small aircraft”); 
IPAT Comments at 4 (opposing a cap on in-state consumer travel costs due to “the breadth of services required to 
serve the unique needs of people with deaf-blindness”).  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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
52
117. The NDBEDP Administrator will review each claim for travel reimbursement, in addition 
to conducting overall monitoring of travel expenses generally.  We believe that having the NDBEDP 
Administrator monitor these costs will ensure that the costs remain reasonable.  We further direct 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.
351
  
E. Training Trainers
118. For the reasons discussed below, we 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.  We direct 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.
119. 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.
352
  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.”
353
  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.
354
  In the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice and again 
in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on how to mitigate the persistent shortage of qualified 
training personnel through the allocation of NDBEDP funding for train-the-trainer activities.
355
                                                     
351
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, we will continue to reimburse certified programs for the reasonable 
costs associated with program personnel travel and consumer travel to an NDBEDP center.
352
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5671, para. 70.
353
Id.
354
Id.
355
Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 9459, para. 19; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5299-
5303, paras. 87-95.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
53
120. A substantial majority of commenters support allocating NDBEDP funding for train-the-
trainer activities or programs.
356
  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.
357
  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.
358
  Rather, the continuing shortage shows that other funding sources have not 
adequately addressed the problem during the pilot program.  We thus agree with the majority of 
commenters that it is both appropriate and necessary at this time to allocate NDBEDP funding for train-
the-trainer activities. 
121. 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.”
359
  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.
360
  We thus conclude 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.
361
  We believe 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.
362
  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 
                                                     
356
See SRC/CBVI Comments at 5 (“Qualified trainers are essential to the success of this program, as there is little 
point in purchasing a device for a client if they can’t receive adequate training in its use.”); HKNC Comments at 9 
(“Without qualified adaptive technology trainers the national impact of the CVAA is severely impeded.”); ATAP 
Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 4; ATK Comments at 4; ATLA Comments at 4; CAAG Comments at 6; GACHI 
Comments at 21; IDBI Comments at 23; IOD Comments at 5;  LightHouse Comments at 6; MoAT Comments at 3; 
Northeast Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services, Inc. (NDHHS) Comments at 1; Perkins Comments at 44; WATAP 
Comments at 4; CAAG Reply Comments at 3-4.  
357
See, e.g., Perkins Comments at 8 (affirming that “there is a critical shortage of trainers in certain parts of the 
country”); HKNC Comments at 9 (advocating funding to give trainers necessary skills, experience and coaching); 
DRM Reply Comments at 46; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5298, para. 86.
358
Contrary to GACHI’s suggestion that state vocational rehabilitation agencies may provide an alternate source of 
train-the-trainer funding (GACHI Comments at 21), there is no evidence in the record that funding by such agencies 
is available for this purpose in any state, let alone in all states and territories covered by the NDBEDP.  In addition, 
while HKNC did establish a train-the-trainer program with a grant from a private foundation, it appears that most 
state programs have not been able to afford participation in this program.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 
5300, para. 88; see also CDBP Comments at 6  (suggesting that funding for such training should come from “other 
sources rather than NDBEDP,” but failing to identify such other sources); IPAT Comments at 4 (suggesting that 
funding for such training should be maximized via collaboration among certified programs).
359
S. Rep. at 1; H. Rep. at 19; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5299, para. 87.
360
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670, para. 69.  
361
47 U.S.C. § 620; NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5299, para. 87 (suggesting the Commission has 
authority to allocate a portion of the NDBEDP funding to mitigate the shortage of qualified training personnel, given 
their importance to the success of the program).
362
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5299, para. 87.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
54
equipment for use by people who are deaf-blind.”
363
Thus, we conclude 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.
364
122. Amount of Funding.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked whether $250,000 per year, 
which equates to 2.5% of the total available funding for the NDBEDP, would be reasonable and sufficient 
for train-the-trainer activities or programs.
365
  To address concerns that train-the-trainer activities not be 
funded to the detriment of funding for the distribution of equipment and the provision of related services, 
we proposed to obtain these funds by reallocating a portion of funding previously used for national 
outreach.
366
  We also asked about the extent to which increasing the number of qualified trainers 
nationwide might result in a reduction in overall program costs by reducing the need for trainers to travel 
to multiple states to provide training.
367
  
123. Most commenters in favor of using NDBEDP funding for train-the-trainer activities 
support an annual allocation of $250,000 for this purpose,
368
while a few contend that more than $250,000 
may be needed initially.
369
  We conclude 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, we direct 
such allocation for the first five years of the permanent program, with a review of this amount to take 
place during the fifth year. 
124. Training Program Structure.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we noted that some parties 
responding to the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice proposed that the Commission select one or more 
national entities to operate train-the-trainer activities for all certified programs, in addition or in the 
alternative to permitting states to use 2.5% of their funding allocations for individual training programs.
370
  
We sought comment on whether to establish a train-the-trainer program at the national level and, if so, 
how such funding should be used.
371
  In response to the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, although one commenter 
supports funding a national program,
372
most commenters express a preference for allowing certified 
                                                     
363
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670-71, para. 69 (finding that in-person equipment set-up 
assistance and training are essential to ensure that deaf-blind individuals effectively benefit from the NDBEDP and 
to prevent the underutilization or abandonment of equipment).  
364
See Perkins Comments at 42; see also IDBI Comments at 23.
365
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5300, para. 89.
366
Id. at 5300-01, para. 89.
367
Id.  
368
See CAAG Comments at 6; HKNC Comments at 9; IDBI Comments at 23; Perkins Comments at 44; SRC/CBVI 
Comments at 5; DRM Reply Comments at 46.
369
LightHouse Comments at 6; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 6 (arguing that trainer training should be “fully 
funded” now, and anticipating that the costs will decrease over time as more people become skilled trainers).
370
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5302, para. 92.  A 2.5% allocation would permit, for example, a certified 
program with a $100,000 annual allocation to seek reimbursement for up to $2,500 of train-the-trainer related 
expenses, or permit a program with an allocation of $500,000 to seek reimbursement for up to $12,500 of train-the-
trainer related expenses.  
371
Id. at 5302, para. 93.  The Commission noted as well that it could consider a variety of approaches to construct a 
national program, including use of existing Commission resources, coordination with another federal agency, and 
acquisition of services through a competitive procurement.  Id. 
372
HKNC Comments at 9-11.  During the pilot phase, HKNC developed and operated a national train-the-trainer 
program, used by some of the certified programs, which was funded by a private grant of $380,000 that expired in 
March 2015. NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5300, para. 88 & n.302.  HKNC explains that this support 
enabled it to work with the deaf-blind community, certified programs, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and other 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
55
programs to develop training capacities within their own states or through agreements with neighboring 
states.
373
  As a number of commenters suggest, a national-level train-the-trainer program may not always 
permit the face-to-face interaction often needed for effective training and may not be easily tailored to 
address specific needs that differ from state to state.
374
  Given the benefits of allowing individual 
programs to determine the types of train-the-trainer activities they require, we 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.
375
125. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked whether to treat train-the-trainer state program 
expenditures as an administrative cost or to require separate accounting for train-the-trainer expenses.
376
In the event that such expenditures are treated as an administrative cost, we asked whether the cap on 
administrative costs should be raised by 2.5%, to 17.5%.  Most commenters oppose treating these 
expenditures as an administrative cost, contending that training trainers is an activity that benefits state 
residents who are deaf-blind.
377
  We agree.  Further, we are concerned that increasing the cap on 
administrative costs 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.
378
  For 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
stakeholders through three training models:  (1) a “seminar” model; (2) an “on-the-road” model to support trainers 
working with consumers; and (3) a “camp” model wherein deaf-blind instructors worked one-on-one with future 
deaf-blind trainers.  HKNC Comments at 11.  HKNC urges the Commission to make a national training program a 
permanent component of the NDBEDP because this would allow trainer skills and expertise to advance along with 
emerging technologies and “guarantee quality services for NDBEDP.”  Id. at 10.  
373
See, e.g., ATAP Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 4; ATK Comments at 4; ATLA Comments at 4; CAAG 
Comments at 7; CDBP Comments at 6; IOD Comments at 4-5; LightHouse Comments at 6; MoAT Comments at 3; 
Perkins Comments at 44-46; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 6; WATAP Comments at 4.
374
See, e.g., WATAP Comments at 4 (explaining, for example, that “many current and potential trainers in 
Washington state are themselves deaf-blind and in-person capacity building and training efforts would likely be the 
only means for meeting their needs due to the communication challenges faced”); Perkins Comments at 44-45 
(contending that “certified programs are in the best position to plan for and secure the training needed for their 
states”); CAAG Comments at 7; LightHouse Comments at 6.
375
In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, the Commission asked about the criteria it should consider in the selection of an 
entity to establish, coordinate, and conduct a train-the-trainer program at the national level.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 
30 FCC Rcd at 5303, para. 94.  IDBI was the only commenter to respond, suggesting that the “essential criteria” 
included “experience with the target population; familiarity with Braille and Braille devices; familiarity with 
emerging communications technologies and end user equipment; staff who are skilled in [American Sign Language] 
as well as other communication methodologies; and a track record of multi-modal training and ability to maintain 
pace with the technology.”  IDBI Comments at 25.  While, as noted above, we decide not to establish a national 
training program at this time, the guidelines recommended by IDBI may prove useful to states wishing to establish 
their own training programs and activities.
376
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5301-02, para. 91. 
377
See ATAP Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 4; ATK Comments at 4; ATLA Comments at 4; IOD Comments at 
5; LightHouse Comments at 6; MoAT Comments at 3; Perkins Comments at 45; WATAP Comments at 4; see also 
IPAT Comments at 4 (opposing 2.5% allocations to train trainers, but, if allowed, the costs should not be treated as 
administrative costs).
378
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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
56
these reasons, we require 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. 
126. Training Formats.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked whether we should require or 
permit training to be conducted in a variety of formats, such as individual training, group training, and 
distance training through online resources.
379
  In addition, we asked whether we should permit 
reimbursement for train-the-trainer activities conducted by HKNC, certified programs, equipment 
manufacturers or vendors, or other entities.
380
  We also sought comment on whether and how we should 
encourage the employment of individuals who are deaf-blind, including NDBEDP equipment recipients, 
as trainers.
381
127. Commenters generally support granting certified programs considerable flexibility in 
spending their train-the-trainer funding allocation, and are in agreement that the Commission should 
allow use of these funds for individual, group, distance or online training activities by a wide range of 
entities.
382
  Several commenters also find value in permitting vendor-supported training.
383
  However, in 
order to minimize the risk of having certified programs favor certain manufacturers or vendors, IDBI 
suggests having “a clear policy, such as a code of professional [conduct]” to cover such training, and 
further recommends a prohibition against reimbursement of equipment manufacturers and vendors for 
training trainers.
384
  
128. We agree 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, we 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.  We further agree 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, we understand 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 we decline to provide reimbursement for a company’s training fees, we 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).
                                                     
379
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5303, para. 95.
380
Id. at 5302, para. 91 (noting, for example, the possible risk of having certified programs favor the selection of 
equipment from manufacturers or vendors that conduct train-the-trainer activities).  
381
Id. at 5303, para. 95.
382
See, e.g., DRM Reply Comments at 48; IDBI Comments at 25; LightHouse Comments at 6; Perkins Comments 
at 44, 46 (seeking “flexibility to provide training in the format [states] deem to be the most appropriate,” including 
the enrollment of staff in activities conducted by HKNC and other entities, training activities by certified programs, 
and on-the-job training).  The Seattle Lighthouse offers the following guidance to ensure training is accessible to 
deaf-blind trainees:  training over several days, rather than short intensive sessions; training in a physically and 
visually accessible space; adequate breaks; providing information and materials in alternative formats with enough 
time to absorb them; providing audio amplification and assistive listening systems; and providing on-site support 
services.  Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 6.
383
DRM Reply Comments at 48 (suggesting that a program might seek out training by a vendor whose equipment is 
already slated for distribution by that program).
384
IDBI Comments at 24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
57
129. In response to comments filed in this proceeding, we also encourage 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.
385
  
130. Fifth Year Assessment.  We will provide NDBEDP support for train-the-trainer efforts 
during the first five years of the permanent program, and direct 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.
386
  In making this 
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.”
387
  To facilitate such assessment, we 
direct 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.
388
  We believe 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.
F. Outreach
1. National Outreach
131. 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.
389
  As the 
Commission explained in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, significant initial funding for outreach was 
necessary to launch the pilot program, because eligible individuals needed to become informed about the 
availability of the program before distribution of equipment could take place.
390
  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 
                                                     
385
See, e.g., CAAG Comments at 7; IDBI Comments at 25; Perkins Comments at 46.  In addition, training of 
individuals who are deaf-blind to be trainers may ultimately lead to increased employment opportunities for such 
individuals.  CAAG Comments at 7; IDBI Comments at 25; Perkins Comments at 46.
386
Some commenters recommend against limiting approval for funding for train-the-trainer activities to a number of 
years because they claim ongoing training is needed to address trainer attrition, ensure that trainers are available to 
meet consumers’ individual needs, and keep pace with changes in technology.  Perkins Comments at 43-44; 
SRC/CBVI Comments at 5; DRM Reply Comments at 47.  As the perpetual need for such funding has not been 
established, we conclude that the better alternative is to have a review of training support at a specified period of 
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.
387
S. Rep. at 1; H. Rep. at 19.
388
See generally Perkins Comments at 46.  Among other things, Perkins recommends measuring increases in the 
number of trainers in states that have reported a shortage, and measuring certified programs’ satisfaction with 
training that is targeted to increase expertise on certain kinds of equipment.  Id. at 43.  Such factors as reductions in 
the time consumers wait for training, how much consumer training is provided, consumer proficiency before and 
after training, and improvements in consumer satisfaction with training may be relevant to this analysis.  DRM 
Reply Comments at 47; see also SRC/CBVI Comments at 5 (recommending targeted surveys to consumers to assess 
the extent to which train-the-trainer activities have increased a program’s ability to address the instructional needs of 
these individuals).
389
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5281, para. 58.  
390
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5676, para. 80.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
58
who are deaf-blind to get the equipment they need to have access to covered services.
391
  National 
outreach activities under the NDBEDP have supplemented the local outreach efforts conducted by state 
programs.
392
  
132. In 2012, the Bureau selected Perkins, which has partnered with HKNC, FableVision, Inc., 
and others, to be the national outreach coordinator for the NDBEDP pilot program.
393
  Their efforts 
resulted in, among other things, an NDBEDP website (www.iCanConnect.org),
394
an active social media 
presence,
395
public service announcements (PSAs),
396
and advertisements on billboards and in 
magazines.
397
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to continue funding national outreach efforts 
for each of the permanent program’s first three years but at a reduced level of $250,000, given the success 
of national and local outreach efforts in publicizing the NDBEDP.
398
  We sought comment on how such a 
reduction in funding would affect national outreach efforts and how to ensure that national outreach 
efforts are cost effective.
399
133. Virtually all commenters addressing this issue support continuing some national outreach 
activities.
400
  While some commenters assert that local outreach efforts have been more effective than, or 
                                                     
391
See NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5675, para. 79; see also Telecommunications Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Report and Order and 
Request for Comments, 6 FCC Rcd 4657, 4663, para. 28 (1991) (TRS I) (adopting the TRS outreach requirement); 
Structure and Practice of the Video Relay Service Program et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 8618, 8632, para. 27 (2013) (VRS Reform Order) (noting the importance of outreach in 
the TRS program, especially in the period when “TRS was a relatively novel service,” to achieve Congress’s goal of 
making TRS widely available in the most efficient manner).
392
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5281, para. 58.
393
Id.; Perkins School for the Blind to Conduct National Outreach for the National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6143 (CGB 2012).  
394
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5281-82, para. 58.  For example, the iCanConnect website promotes the 
NDBEDP and provides contact and other information for each of the 53 certified programs, covers news media and 
personal stories about how the program has benefitted equipment recipients, and provides an overview of the types 
of communications equipment the program can provide.  Id. at 5282, n.175.
395
Id. at 5282, n.176; https://www.facebook.com/iCanConnect.org; https://twitter.com/iCanConnect1.
396
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5282, n.177; iCanConnect, :60 PSA Captioned, YouTube (May 7, 2014), 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyQ6d9SgQ6s (60-second PSA); ; iCanConnect, :30 PSA Captioned, YouTube 
(May 7, 2014), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRlm8M7ieck (30-second PSA); iCanConnect, :10 PSA 
Captioned, YouTube (May 7, 2014), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRAJKCINY9o (10-second PSA).
397
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5282, n.178; iCanConnect, Year One Highlights, National Call, 
September 26, 2013, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958851 (filed at the FCC on Nov. 20, 2013) 
(providing a synopsis of the first year of the NDBEDP pilot program, including national marketing and outreach 
efforts) (Year One Highlights).  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we described additional activities that Perkins 
conducted as part of its NDBEDP national outreach efforts, including 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.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5282, para. 59.
398
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5283, paras. 60-61.  
399
Id. at 5283, para. 61.
400
See ACB Comments at 2; ATAP Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 3; ATK Comments at 4; ATLA Comments 
at 3; CAAG Comments at 11; CDBP Comments at 5; GACHI Comments at 19; HKNC Comments at 6; IDBI 
Comments at 17-18; IOD Comments at 4; IPAT Comments at 3; LightHouse Comments at 4; MoAT Comments at 
2; Perkins Comments at 26; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 5-6; WATAP Comments at 4; CAAG Reply 
Comments at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
59
are duplicative of, national outreach efforts,
401
most of these commenters see value in maintaining some 
funding to support national outreach activities, including a national website, an 800 number and call 
center, the provision of digital marketing materials that can be customized by state programs or drive 
traffic to the iCanConnect webpages and social media, and monthly conference calls to provide support to 
states.
402
  Other commenters contend that national outreach efforts are necessary to support certified
programs because the latter may be more focused on distributing equipment and providing related 
services to consumers rather than local outreach and marketing.
403
134. We conclude that we continue 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.
404
  Based on the comments submitted, we 
find that some national outreach, overseen by the NDBEDP Administrator, continues to be needed to 
raise awareness about the program,
405
educate potential applicants on the ways that broadband and other 
communication services can enhance their lives, and instruct them on how to apply.  
135. Although there is some concern about the amount of the proposed reduction,
406
several 
commenters express support for this Commission’s proposal.
407
  Given this and the significant progress 
made in raising awareness of the NDBEDP during the pilot program, we conclude 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.
408
  During the fifth year of the permanent program, we direct 
the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator to determine the extent to which the allocation for national 
                                                     
401
See ATK Comments at 4 (stating that “[p]opulations of large, rural states appeared to be untouched” by national 
outreach efforts); ATAP Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 3; ATLA Comments at 3; GACHI Comments at 18 
(reporting that most of its applicants were informed about the program through local outreach efforts); IOD 
Comments at 4: IPAT Comments 3 (asserting that national outreach efforts “did not reach the market of consumers 
served by the certified entity in North Dakota”); LightHouse Comments at 4; MoAT Comments at 2; WATAP 
Comments at 4 (stating that “Washington has benefited little from the national outreach effort”).  Some of these 
commenters support giving certified programs additional funds for local outreach.  See, e.g., ATK Comments at 4; 
GACHI Comments at 18; IPAT Comments at 3.
402
See ATAP Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 3; ATK Comments at 4; ATLA Comments at 3; CDBP Comments 
at 5; IOD Comments at 4; LightHouse Comments at 4; MoAT Comments at 2; WATAP Comments at 4.  GACHI 
and IDBI add that national outreach funding also should continue to be used to gather state program success stories.  
GACHI Comments at 19; IDBI Comments at 18.
403
See Perkins Comments at 28 (stating that “[m]any certified programs are run by small to medium sized non-profit 
agencies that do not have marketing staff or experience”); HKNC Comments at 6; CAAG Comments at 11 (noting 
that the national iCanConnect website “has proven to be an invaluable tool for state programs and service 
providers”); CAAG Reply Comments at 6 (suggesting that the Commission “encourage state programs to use the 
resources developed by [Perkins] in their individual state programs to reduce state costs”).  
404
See 47 U.S.C. §620(a); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5675, para. 79; see also TRS I, 6 FCC 
Rcd at 4663 para. 28 (adopting the TRS outreach requirement); VRS Reform Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 8632, para. 27 
(noting the importance of outreach in the TRS program, especially in the period when “TRS was a relatively novel 
service,” to achieve Congress’s goal of making TRS widely available in the most efficient manner).
405
See Perkins Comments at 26-27.  
406
Id. at 27.
407
See IDBI Comments at 18 (concurring that $250,000 “will be sufficient to continue the outreach activities, 
including maintenance of the iCanConnect website, marketing materials, support to states to gather and promote 
success stories, and others”); IPAT Comments at 3; DRM Reply Comments at 29 (also supporting annual 
adjustments to the level of funding based on a “measurement of need”).
408
We therefore decline to adopt CAAG’s proposal to gradually reduce funding to $400,000 the first program year, 
$300,000 the second year, and $250,000 the fifth year.  See CAAG Comments at 11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
60
outreach efforts should be continued or adjusted, to ensure that funding allocated for the NDBEDP is used 
efficiently.
409
136. To avoid any disruption and loss of expertise developed by the current national outreach 
arm of the NDBEDP, we authorize Perkins to continue conducting national outreach activities for the first 
five years of the permanent program.  We direct 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.
410
137. Targeted Marketing Efforts. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on 
whether national outreach activities should target specific groups that may be unserved or underserved 
and on specific methods of communication or activities that should be used to reach such groups.
411
  
Based on the comments received, we conclude 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,
412
individuals who are congenitally blind or deaf and who experience a second sensory loss later in life,
413
ASL users,
414
and individuals with limited English proficiency.
415
  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.
416
138. Performance and Oversight.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought input on 
performance goals and measures to facilitate oversight of the NDBEDP’s national outreach efforts, 
including the costs and benefits of collecting various categories of data.
417
  To evaluate the efficacy of 
national outreach efforts during the fifth year of the program, we establish the following three 
performance goals:  (1) to build awareness of the iCanConnect program generally; (2) to build awareness 
                                                     
409
To avoid a lapse in the provision of critical national outreach components – website, 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.
410
In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we stated that we would consider a variety of in-house, regulatory, and 
procurement strategies to provide national outreach for the NDBEDP.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5283, 
para. 60.  These approaches, alone or in combination, include using existing Commission staff and resources, 
engaging another agency with expertise through an Interagency agreement, acquiring these services through a 
competitive procurement, evaluating whether to modify an existing contract to satisfy the program requirements, or 
inviting entities, via a public notice, to submit applications for the role of national outreach coordinator.  Id.
411
Id. at 5284, para. 62.
412
See IDBI Comments at 18; IPAT Comments at 3 (reporting that “North Dakota leads the nation in older adults” 
and that “estimates of the incidence of dual sensory loss for this population range from 7.3% to 21%”); Perkins 
Comments at 28 (noting that the fastest growing population of potential NDBEDP beneficiaries consists of elderly 
individuals with age-related hearing and vision loss).
413
ACB Comments at 2; Perkins Comments at 28.
414
CAAG Comments at 11; IDBI Comments at 18; Perkins Comments at 28.
415
IDBI Comments at 18; Perkins Comments at 28 (recommending development of outreach content in Spanish).
416
See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 18 (recommending that there be a way to enable the iCanConnect website to be 
translated automatically to languages other than English); Perkins Comments at 28 (providing, as examples, 
government agencies, membership organizations, family caregiving groups, minority aging organizations, and 
nutrition providers).
417
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5284, para. 63.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
61
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.  We 
further adopt the following performance metrics to assess the effectiveness of our 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 website traffic, NDBEDP application 
downloads, and impressions on social media.
418
  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.
419
  Third, to determine the extent to which our national 
outreach efforts increase utilization of the NDBEDP by the intended population, we will measure the 
number of individual applicants to the program, as well as the number of individuals who successfully 
receive NDBEDP equipment annually.
420
  While other metrics suggested by commenters may be 
potentially useful,
421
we wish 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.
422
  However, we direct the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator to adjust or modify these 
performance goals and metrics as may be needed going forward. 
139. 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.
423
  
Because we found this information to be both timely and informative, we require that, going forward, 
Perkins, and any subsequent entity that may be selected by the Commission to conduct national outreach, 
submit cost data for 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.
2. Local Outreach  
140. In addition to allocating funding for national outreach, the Commission has required and 
reimbursed local outreach during each year of the pilot program.
424
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 
tentatively concluded that we should continue these features in the permanent NDBEDP, while seeking 
                                                     
418
See Perkins Comments at 26, 29 (supporting these and other measures).  We encourage 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. See id.at 31.  Any applications provided on this site 
must be provided in formats that are accessible to applicants.  We also encourage certified programs to keep their 
contact information on the www.iCanConnect.org state pages up to date to enable referrals.  See id.
419
See id. at 26, 29 (supporting these and other measures).  
420
While we establish this as a performance goal at this time, we note 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, we 
note that in order to effectively measure its success, we will need to gather reliable data through uniform reporting 
into a centralized database.  See infra Part VII.E (NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and 
Reimbursement).
421
For example, Perkins suggests that we also measure performance of outreach efforts by tracking growth in social 
media channels and media impressions.  Perkins Comments at 26.  
422
See GAO GPRA Report at 25 (“The number of measures for each goal at a given organizational level should be 
limited to the vital few.”).
423
See, e.g., Year One Highlights. 
424
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5284-85, para. 64; see 47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2)(v); see also NDBEDP Pilot 
Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5675, para. 79.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
62
input on the scope of local outreach, the level of funding needed, and performance metrics and criteria to 
evaluate local outreach efforts.
425
  
141. Commenters responding to the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM generally support – and no party 
opposes – the continuation of local outreach activities.
426
  We conclude that local outreach is needed 
along with national outreach due to the unique needs of each state program.
427
  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.
428
  We therefore affirm our 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 webpages,
429
and to 
reimburse programs for the reasonable costs of such outreach.
430
  In addition we encourage certified 
programs to conduct local outreach activities in languages other than English, such as Spanish, that may 
be prevalent in their states.  
142. We continue to require local outreach materials to be fully accessible to people with 
disabilities,
431
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 
                                                     
425
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5285-86, paras. 65-67.
426
See ATLA Comments at 3-4; CAAG Comments at 11; GACHI Comments at 18-19; IDBI Comments at 18-19; 
IPAT Comments at 3; HKNC Comments at 6-7; LightHouse Comments at 4; NDHHS Comments at 1; Perkins 
Comments at 29-30; Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 4; SRC/CBVI Comments at 4.  In addition, parties responding 
to the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice universally supported continued reimbursement for local outreach, with 
commenters emphasizing the ability of such outreach to reach specific populations within the state by age, location, 
and other traits.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5285, para. 65.  They reported that funding for local 
outreach has been used for a variety of activities, including developing the certified program’s NDBEDP webpage, 
creating program brochures, promoting the NDBEDP through social media, and local advertising.  Id.  
427
Perkins Comments at 29 (noting that what works well in one state may not be as successful in another; for 
example, in some markets a church bulletin may outperform newspaper advertising).  Perkins also reports that “the 
benefits of local campaigns can also accrue to the national program.”  For example, Perkins ran Facebook ads in 
states that “had a great impact on the overall increase in popularity of the iCanConnect Facebook page.”  Perkins at 
29.
428
HKNC states that the benefits of local outreach “extend beyond identifying new applicants;” for example, in one 
state, local presentations enabled HKNC to “identify possible trainers, meet existing program applicants, educate 
members about the program and receive referrals for new applicants.”  HKNC Comments at 6.  
429
The record indicates that state programs’ websites have been effective in informing state residents about the 
existence of the NDBEDP and how to apply for equipment and related services.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 
FCC Rcd at 5286, para. 67 (seeking comment on whether to continue reimbursement for this purpose); IDBI 
Comments at 19 (in support of such funding).  
430
There are a variety of local outreach activities that may be reasonably calculated to inform their state residents 
about the NDBEDP.  For example, ATLA reports that, in Alaska, “onsite awareness activities” conducted by 
program staff “with local health care personnel, telephone providers, conferences, health fairs, etc.” is the most 
effective form of local outreach.  ATLA Comments at 4.  HKNC reports that it makes presentations to a variety of 
educational, medical, disability-related, and senior-related agencies and organizations that serve individuals with 
hearing and vision losses.  HKNC Comments at 7.  IPAT states that it has an NDBEDP webpage and program 
brochure, and advertises through social media outlets, local newspapers, and public service announcements.  IPAT 
Comments at 3.
431
See 47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2)(v) (requiring certified programs, under the pilot program, to conduct outreach to 
inform their state residents about the NDBEDP). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
63
Disabilities Act.
432
  Finally, we recommend that the national outreach coordinator provide information 
about its outreach initiatives on the iCanConnect website and on monthly calls with local programs.  We 
believe this coordination will avoid duplicative efforts and consumer confusion.
433
143. Level of Funding.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on the level of 
funding for local outreach that should be deemed reasonable for purposes of reimbursement under the 
permanent NDBEDP.  We noted that certified programs spent a combined average of approximately 10% 
of their program expenditures on local outreach during the second year of the pilot program and that it 
appeared that those efforts had been effective.  As a result, we proposed to cap outreach expenditures at 
10% of each state’s funding allocation during the first two years of the permanent program, after which 
the NDBEDP Administrator would reassess this level of funding.
434
  
144. Some commenters support a 10% cap on funding for local outreach efforts
435
while others 
oppose it.
436
  Supporting a 10% guideline for local outreach funding, Perkins urges providing flexibility to 
increase this percentage for particular state programs upon request to the Commission, when justified by 
data.
437
145. We are 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.  We further note 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, we note 
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 we 
continue to believe that local outreach should constitute no more than 10% of a certified program’s annual 
funding allocation, we will not mandate a hard cap at this time, but will require programs to seek 
permission from the NDBEDP Administrator to exceed this benchmark.  We direct 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
146. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought input on specific metrics and criteria for 
evaluating the success of local outreach efforts and asked how to best ensure that local outreach efforts 
                                                     
432
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (state and local government services), §§ 12181-12189 (public accommodations 
and services operated by private entities); Perkins Comments at 31 (Materials should be available in Spanish or 
another prominent second language, to the extent it is known to be needed and is economically feasible).
433
Such confusion has taken place, for example, when consumers have received direct mail as part of the national 
outreach efforts.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5284, para. 62 (seeking comment on the need for such 
coordination); see also IDBI Comments at 18; Perkins at 28.  
434
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5286, para. 66.
435
CAAG Comments at 11; HKNC Comments at 7; IDBI Comments at 18.
436
ATLA Comments at 3-4 (explaining that Alaska is faced with unique outreach challenges, given that over 75% of 
the state is comprised of rural areas); GACHI Comments at 18-19; IPAT Comments at 3; LightHouse Comments at 
4 (recommending a cap in the 15-20% range to account for additional outreach costs by states with “high geographic 
coverage” and “multiple language needs”); NDHHS Comments at 1 (requesting sufficient funding to employ 
someone on a part-time basis for outreach); SRC/CBVI Comments at 4 (contending that “each individual program is 
in the best position to determine what their outreach expense needs are”).
437
Perkins Comments at 30.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
64
are cost effective.
438
  Commenters generally emphasize the need for local outreach metrics to be tailored 
to the needs and circumstances of each program.
439
  Recognizing that certified programs will necessarily 
focus on different outreach activities to reflect the unique challenges and demographic makeup of their 
jurisdictions, we conclude 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.
147. To maximize the availability of funds for operations of direct benefit to equipment 
recipients, we encourage certified programs to gradually reduce the amount used for outreach as demand 
for the NDBEDP accelerates.  We further direct 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,
440
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. 
VI. FUNDING
A. Allocation of Funding 
148. In the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, the Commission committed to making the full 
amount of authorized funding, $10 million annually,
441
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.
442
  Of this 
amount, the Commission set aside $500,000 for national outreach efforts during each year of the pilot 
program.
443
  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.
444
  The Commission 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 
                                                     
438
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5286, para. 66.
439
HKNC Comments at 7 (noting that for its New York program, it assesses outreach by analyzing the existence of 
“collaborative partnerships” with agencies and organizations in the state’s various counties, while for Hawaii and 
Iowa, it measures growth in the number of qualified applicants); Perkins Comments at 30 (suggesting that metrics 
for outreach be based on each program’s specific needs, including increases in inquiries and both general and 
targeted enrollments).
440
See infra Part VII.C (Performance Goals and Measures).
441
We remind program participants that the TRS Fund is a permanent indefinite appropriation.  Thus, like other 
appropriated funds, it is subject to certain restrictions.  While some of these restrictions are longstanding and 
codified in the United States Code, other restrictions on use of appropriated funds (including permanent indefinite 
appropriations) may be included in annual appropriation acts.  Appropriated funds are also subject to a variety of 
statutory controls and restrictions that, among other things, limit the purposes for which they may be used and 
provide a scheme of funds control.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5304-5305, para. 98 & nn.331-333.  
442
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5677, para. 85; see also 47 U.S.C. § 620(c).
443
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5675-76, para. 80.
444
Id. at 5677, paras. 84-85.  The term “state” refers to each of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  The Bureau announced each of these allocations at the start of each Fund year.  
See, e.g., NDBEDP Pilot Program Certification Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 7400-7402 (announcing initial 
funding allocation for 2012-2013); Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Announces 2015-2016 Allocations 
for the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 6369 (CGB 2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
65
NDBEDP and permit the distribution of equipment to as many eligible residents as possible.”
445
  Under 
the pilot program rules, the Bureau was permitted to adjust or reallocate funding allocations to any 
certified program within a given Fund year,
446
and to revise allocations for subsequent TRS Fund years, 
as the Bureau deemed necessary and appropriate.
447
149. Initial Allocations.  Based on our experience during the pilot program and the record in 
this proceeding, we will continue to use this funding mechanism for the permanent NDBEDP  with the 
following exceptions, as are explained more fully in other parts of this Order:  (1) we 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) we 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.
448
  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.
449
150. Commenters generally support maintaining the mechanism used to allocate NDBEDP 
funds during the pilot program for the permanent NDBEDP.
450
  Our experience with the program has 
                                                     
445
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5677, para. 84. The Commission also noted that NDBEDP 
funding is available on an annual and ongoing basis, rather than in a single lump sum.  Id. at 5677, n.299.
446
Id. at 5679, para. 90.
447
Id. at 5677, para. 85.
448
As discussed above, we will also permit 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 of the permanent program and reassess the need for continuing such funding 
beyond this period.  All of the commenters responding to the issue concur with our tentative conclusion in the 
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM that funding should not be allocated for research and development (R&D).  NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5319, para. 131; ACB Comments at 4; IDBI Comments at 29; Perkins Comments at 59.  We 
agree that there are “simply not enough fund[s] or resources available for the NDBEDP to undertake this effort” at 
this time.  IDBI Comments at 29.  We note, however, that through a variety of efforts, including activities 
undertaken by the Commission’s Disability Advisory Committee, the Commission promotes collaborative problem-
solving among stakeholders to ensure that people with disabilities, including individuals who are deaf-blind, reap the 
full benefits of communications technology.  More information about the Disability Advisory Committee is 
available at https://www.fcc.gov/general/disability-advisory-committee.  
449
As noted above, we are adding American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to the original 53 
jurisdictions that received funding under the NDBEDP pilot program.  Perkins asks us to weigh the financial 
implications of applying the current allocation mechanism to these three new jurisdictions, out of its concern that 
doing so could reduce the allocation for the other 53 certified programs.  Perkins Comments at 7, 47.  Based on the 
current populations of these added jurisdictions, 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.  We 
conclude that allocating this amount will not have a significant impact on the funding allocations of the other 53 
certified programs, and so we find it appropriate to apply the current allocation mechanism to all jurisdictions under 
the permanent program.
450
See IDBI Comments at 25; CDBP Comments at 6; HKNC Comments at 12; Perkins Comments at 47.  Although 
some parties responding to the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice questioned the population-based allocation of 
funds – suggesting that some states might have higher proportions of deaf-blind consumers than others – to the best 
of our knowledge, there is no reliable data on the number of people who are deaf-blind in each state, and the 
allocations previously made generally have met the needs of NDBEDP applicants.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 
FCC Rcd at 5304, para. 97 (seeking comment on whether to retain the funding mechanism used in the pilot 
program).  We also reject GACHI’s proposal for the Commission to adjust initial annual allocations under the 
permanent NDBEDP based on the amount of funding used by each certified program during the pilot program.  
GACHI Comments at 22.  Given that the NDBEDP is still a nascent program, and that underutilization of a state 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
66
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 below.
451
  Further, we 
believe 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,
452
approximately 94% was used 
during the second year,
453
and approximately 88% was used during the third year.
454
This funding 
enabled equipment and related services to bring communications access to approximately 3,000 low-
income deaf-blind individuals.
151. Reallocations.  We further conclude 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.
455
  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.
456
  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).
457
  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).
458
  Involuntary reallocations were processed by mid-May of the 
second and third years of the pilot program.
152. Commenters generally support the continued reallocation of funds between certified 
programs in the permanent NDBEDP, as deemed necessary and appropriate by the NDBEDP 
Administrator to maximize the use of available funding.
459
  Several commenters urge that such 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
program in one year does not mean this will occur in subsequent years, we believe that the better approach is to 
divide initial allocations among the states according to their overall populations and make reallocations in the 
NDBEDP funding as necessary.
451
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5304, para. 97.
452
See infra Appendix C (Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures) (showing 67.58% of $10 million was used).
453
See id. (showing 93.60% of $10 million was used).
454
See id. (showing 88.38% of $10 million was used).  Certified programs must submit reimbursement claims for 
the fourth year of the NDBEDP pilot program – which ends on June 30, 2016 – by August 1, 2016.  See 47 CFR § 
64.610(f)(2).  The Commission will have information about the percentage of the $10 million allocation used during 
this period after all reimbursement claims have been processed and paid.
455
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5305-5306, para. 100.  
456
Id. at 5305, para. 99.  
457
For example, during the first half of the second year of the pilot program, the NDBEDP Administrator approved 
several requests for reallocations of funds from one program to another.  Id. at 5305, para. 100.
458
Id.  For example, during the third quarter of the second year, the NDBEDP Administrator reduced the annual 
allocation of certified programs that had not used at least half of their annual allocations, to provide extra funds to 
states that were in need of extra revenues.  During the third year the NDBEDP Administrator again approved 
requests for voluntary reallocations and authorized involuntary reallocations.  See National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program (NDBEDP), http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedp/cnbw (follow “2014-2015 Reimbursement 
Requests per state” hyperlink).
459
See, e.g., CDBP Comments at 6; GACHI Comments at 23-24 (approving the formula for involuntary 
reallocations); HKNC Comments at 12 (supporting voluntary and involuntary reallocations); IDBI Comments at 25-
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
67
reallocations should continue to occur in a timely fashion.
460
  Finally, several commenters specifically 
support the practice of notifying the potentially impacted certified programs prior to making involuntary 
reallocations of funding.
461
153. Given the success of this approach in maximizing available funds under the NDBEDP, 
we 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.
462
  We believe 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.
463
  All such 
requests for reallocations must be submitted to the NDBEDP Administrator for approval by the Bureau, 
in consultation with 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, we further 
direct that involuntary reallocations be made by March or April, of each Fund year, to the extent 
possible.
464
154. We 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.
465
  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.
466
  
We believe 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, 
retain this formula for the permanent program.  At the same time, as the Commission previously noted, 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
26 (supporting voluntary reallocations at any time and involuntary reallocations “as necessary when individual 
program performance indicates that NDBEDP funds could be more fully utilized by other certified programs”); 
LightHouse Comments at 6 (expressing gratitude for the reallocated funds given to its program); Perkins Comments 
at 48 (supporting voluntary and involuntary reallocations).
460
HKNC Comments at 12 (suggesting that being able to request additional funds “at the end of the third 
quarter/start of the fourth quarter provides the correct timing to support end of year efforts,” such as 
“outreach/assessment in preparation for the following year; completion of consumer training; [and] minor equipment 
tweaks”); LightHouse Comments at 6 (requesting that funds be reallocated before June, the last month in the Fund 
year); GACHI Comments at 24 (noting that, by the third year of the pilot program, “reallocations were approved in a 
timely manner that did not interrupt services”).
461
IDBI Comments at 26; Perkins Comments at 48; SRC/CBVI Comments at 5.
462
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5306, para. 101 (seeking comment on these approaches).
463
See 47 U.S.C. § 620(a).
464
Although some parties responding to the Permanent NDBEDP Public Notice requested that involuntary 
reallocations be made even earlier during the program’s Fund year to minimize gaps in service, as the Commission 
explained in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, certified programs have the option of filing their reimbursement claims on a 
semiannual basis, and the Bureau does not have the requisite data from all certified programs to determine to what 
extent involuntary reallocations may be appropriate – or to what extent remaining funds will be available for 
reallocations – until reimbursement claims have been received from all certified programs for the second quarter of 
each Fund year.  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5306, para. 101.
465
See id.
466
See id. at 5305, para. 100.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
68
we expect 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.
467
  
We will allow the NDBEDP Administrator to adjust the formula, if necessary, to account for a reduction 
in funds that may be available for reallocations.
468
155. Prioritizing Use of Funding.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked whether we should 
take measures to prioritize the use of funding in the event that demand exceeds the $10 million funding 
limitation and, if so, how.
469
  Several commenters argue that prioritizing measures such as a lower income 
eligibility threshold or a cap on per-recipient expenditures may compromise programs’ ability to meet 
consumers’ needs effectively.
470
  Although the record to date indicates annual NDBEDP expenditures as 
high as 94% of the $10 million annual allocation,
471
there is no evidence of major inefficiencies or 
inequities in how available funding has been used.  Therefore, and consistent with our conclusion that 
certified programs should continue to have flexibility in deciding how to spend their limited allocations of 
NDBEDP resources,
472
we conclude that it is premature at this time to adopt measures to prioritize the use 
of NDBEDP funding. Nonetheless, we recognize that the program has evolved and will continue to 
evolve over time. Accordingly, we direct 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,
473
we see 
this as a natural opportunity for the Bureau to also re-assess how to use program funds in light of overall 
program performance.  We further direct 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 
forward, based on this review.  Finally, to the extent necessary to ensure that the NDBEDP is running 
efficiently and effectively, we direct 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. 
B. Reimbursement Mechanism 
156. 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.
474
  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 
                                                     
467
See, e.g., id. at 5305, paras. 99-100.
468
Under the permanent program, allowable spending for administrative costs is capped at 15% of each state’s initial 
funding allocation, and we have determined that reasonable levels of spending for train-the-trainer activities and 
local outreach efforts are 2.5% and 10%, respectively.  See supra Parts V.E (Training Trainers), V.F (Outreach).  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.  See generally
Perkins Comments at 51 (raising concerns about these calculations).
469
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5280, para. 55.  
470
IDBI Comments at 16-17; Perkins Comments at 24; see also DRM Reply Comments at 26 (noting the need to 
serve both new and returning participants to the program and supporting expanded funding for the provision of 
services and equipment)..
471
See infra Appendix C (Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures).
472
See supra Part V.A (Equipment).
473
See supra Part V.D (Center-Based Assessments and Training), Part V.E (Training Trainers), Part V.F (Outreach).
474
See 47 CFR § 64.610(f) (pilot program rule).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
69
certified programs to actively locate and serve eligible participants, and would achieve greater 
accountability and protection against fraud, waste, and abuse.
475
  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 
proposed to continue using this funding mechanism for the permanent NDBEDP.
476
157. We 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.  We believe that this will ensure that 
certified programs operate in a cost-efficient manner and will maintain the financial integrity of the 
program.
477
  We understand the difficulties that some certified programs, particularly smaller ones, 
initially incurred when starting up their pilot programs without funding support.
478
  However, we continue 
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.  We also believe 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.
479
  To ensure that entities seeking certification have the capacity to operate successfully in a system 
that reimburses them for their program costs, we have added administrative and financial management 
experience as one of the criteria for certification under the permanent program.
480
C. Claim Frequency and Payment Processing
158. Under the NDBEDP pilot program, certified programs have been permitted to elect 
reimbursement monthly, quarterly, or semiannually.
481
  To meet the individualized needs of these 
programs, in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to continue allowing certified entities to elect one 
of these options upon certification and at the beginning of each Fund year.
482
  Alternatively, we asked 
whether requiring all programs to follow a single filing schedule would create greater program 
consistency and efficiencies, or whether this would impose difficulties on programs with limited 
resources.
483
  Commenters addressing the issue support continuing to permit certified programs to elect 
their reimbursement period to best meet their programmatic and administrative needs.
484
  We agree that 
                                                     
475
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5679, para. 88.
476
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5307, para. 103.
477
Id.
478
See ACB Comments at 2 (noting that “smaller programs may not have the ability to front money for 
administrative costs”); GACHI Comments at 28 (explaining the challenges in initiating a program without 
reimbursement for startup and administrative expenses for the first few months of operation); NDHHS Comments at 
1 (noting that the “relatively small” annual allocation for New Hampshire made its ability to “front funds” a lot more 
difficult than for other states).
479
See GACHI Comments at 25-26.
480
See supra Part III.C (Certification Selection Criteria).
481
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, 
Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2812 (CGB 2012) (waiving the pilot program 
requirement to submit reimbursement claims every six months and permitting certified programs to elect, by 
notifying the TRS Fund Administrator, to submit claims quarterly or monthly).  During the pilot program, 10 
certified programs submitted claims monthly, 36 programs submitted claims quarterly, and seven programs 
submitted claims semiannually.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5308, para. 104.  
482
Id.
483
Id.
484
See, e.g., GACHI Comments at 26 (submitting claims monthly “allows for better management of the program 
and day-to-day operations”); Perkins Comments at 50 (monthly claims “might provide hardships for some entities 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
70
this approach will avoid imposing unnecessary administrative burdens on small programs, while allowing 
those programs that need more immediate reimbursement to file more often, and therefore adopt it for the 
permanent program. .  Such elections shall be made upon receiving certification and at the beginning of 
each Fund year.  
159. We also adopt our proposal to continue requiring reimbursement claims to be submitted 
within 30 days after each elected period.
485
  This timeframe is supported by the record and will prevent 
delays when reallocations are deemed necessary.
486
  Finally, as explained in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 
we expect 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.
487
D. Documentation of Reimbursement Claims  
160. 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.
488
  We 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.  We note that while 
some commenters express concerns about the level of detail required to support reimbursement claims,
489
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
due to the very detailed reimbursement claims process”); SRC/CBVI Comments at 5 (requiring monthly claims 
would place an “undue administrative and paperwork burden” on New Jersey’s program); ATAP Comments at 3; 
ATK Comments at 4; IDBI Comments at 26; IOD Comments at 5; MoAT Comments at 3; WATAP Comments at 5. 
485
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.  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).  
486
IDBI and Perkins, the only two entities to comment on this issue, each support this proposal. IDBI Comments at 
26; Perkins Comments at 50.  Increasing the time for filing reimbursement claims (e.g., from 30 to 60 days after the 
claim period ends) could delay the involuntary reallocation process, resulting in less timely reallocations.
487
While noting such expectation, we recognize that the NDBEDP and TRS Fund Administrators may need 
flexibility to alter these time frames in order to address unique issues that arise.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, to 
retain such flexibility, we declined to propose a reimbursement deadline.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 
5307-5308, n.360.  Contra GACHI Comments at 25 (advocating for reimbursement claims to be paid within a set 
time frame).  We further note 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. 
488
47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2) (documentation required to support claims for reimbursement), (f)(3) (declaration 
requirement); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5679, para. 88.  During the pilot program, the TRS 
Fund Administrator has provided certified programs with instructions, guidance, and examples of documentation 
needed to support reimbursement claims.  See National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), 
http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedp/cnbw (last visited July 21, 2016) (follow “Filing Instructions” hyperlink under 
“Forms” or follow any the various hyperlinks under “Samples Requests and Documentation”).
489
See ATLA Comments at 4-5; Lighthouse Comments at 7; NDHHS Comments at 1 (stating that the 
reimbursement mechanism “puts a lot of pressure on small organization like ours” and “is a lot more difficult for us 
than other states”); WATAP Comments at 5 (expressing a preference for the annual audit, rather than 
administratively burdensome documentation, to provide the means of providing oversight); see also NDBEDP 2015 
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5307, para. 103 (seeking comment on this matter).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
71
various commenters support this approach as necessary to achieve accountability and reduce fraud, waste, 
and abuse.
490
  We agree that this mechanism holds programs accountable “for every dollar spent.”
491
  
Contrary to the opinion of some parties, we are not convinced that an annual audit can replace the 
protections provided by the existing documentation mechanism.  
161. However, we 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.
492
  In
addition to documentation routinely required, we will continue to permit the NDBEDP Administrator or 
the TRS Fund Administrator to require programs to provide supplemental information needed to verify 
particular claims.
E. Administrative Costs 
162. 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.
493
  In the NDBEDP pilot program, the Commission defined administrative costs to 
include reporting requirements, accounting, regular audits, oversight, and general administration.
494
  To 
ensure that appropriate administrative costs are reimbursed, the TRS Fund Administrator has instituted 
procedures to “bank” reimbursement claims for administrative costs that exceed 15% of reimbursable 
costs and to pay those claims later if the amount of reimbursable costs increases with later claim 
submissions.
495
  
163. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to revise the policy on compensation for 
administrative costs, by allowing reimbursement up to a percentage of each certified program’s annual 
funding allocation, thereby eliminating the need for the TRS Fund Administrator to “bank” unearned 
administrative costs.  We explained that, given the record of generally successful distribution of 
equipment by the 53 certified programs to their deaf-blind residents over the course of the pilot program, 
we were less concerned that basing the cap of administrative costs on the full funding allocation for each 
certified entity would create a disincentive to distribute equipment.
496
  We also acknowledged that the 
15% cap on administrative expenses reportedly caused some programs to operate at a loss and that it 
could act as a disincentive to participate in the NDBEDP.  We sought comment on whether the creation of 
a centralized database, with an ability to generate reports and reimbursement claims would help alleviate 
administrative cost burdens and financial issues related to the cap.
497
                                                     
490
See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 26; Perkins Comments at 49.
491
GACHI Comments at 25.
492
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 conjunction 
with the development of the centralized database, discussed further below.  See infra Part VII.E (NDBEDP 
Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement).
493
47 CFR § 64.610(f)(vi).  The 15% cap does not apply to costs associated with outreach, assessments, equipment, 
installation, or training.  NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5680, para. 92.
494
Id; see also NDBEDP Expenses at 2.
495
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5309, para. 106.
496
Id.  As noted above, during the second and third years of the pilot program, the vast majority of the funds 
allocated for state programs and national outreach was actually used (approximately 94% in Year 2 and 88% in Year 
3).  See supra para. 150.
497
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5309-10, para. 107.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
72
164. While many commenters express continuing concern about the limitations imposed on 
their programs by the 15% cap on administrative costs,
498
most commenters responding to the issue of 
how to apply the cap support our proposal to assess it against the certified program’s annual funding
allocation.
499
  Others, however, contend that even if the 15% administrative cost cap were to be based on 
the annual funding allocation rather than reimbursable costs, it might not cover their actual costs to 
administer the program.
500
  
165. We continue to believe that a 15% cap on administrative costs is reasonable for the 
permanent program.
501
  For clarity, we define 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, we adopt our 
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, 
we note that certified programs may petition for a waiver of the administrative cost cap rule, which the 
Bureau may consider consistent with our 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.
502
  
Finally, we note our 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.
503
  As a number of commenters suggest, a centralized 
                                                     
498
See, e.g., GACHI Comments at 27-28 (the cap “does not support [the] administrative needs required to maintain a 
successful program”); HKNC Comments at 12 (a 15% cap “is inadequate” to administer this program); IPAT 
Comments at 4; MoAT Comments at 3 (applying this cap as a percentage of the reimbursable costs has “caused 
hardships for a number of programs”); NDHHS Comments at 1 (contending that the cap is “detrimental to smaller 
states” and advocating either a reduction in the reporting requirements or exclusion of the cost of recordkeeping for 
reporting purposes from the 15% cap).
499
See ATAP Comments at 4; ATI Comments at 4; ATK Comments at 5; ATLA Comments at 5; IDBI Comments 
at 26; IOD Comments at 5; IPAT Comments at 4; LightHouse Comments at 7; MoAT Comments at 3; NDHHS 
Comments at 1; WATAP Comments at 5.  
500
ATI Comments at 4; ATLA Comments at 5; WATAP Comments at 5 (each noting that – even if applied to the 
overall state allocation – the 15% cap might still require “states to expend their own non-reimbursable funds to 
implement the program”).  
501
The Commission originally determined that 15% was an appropriate cap for administrative costs for the pilot 
program in response to a suggestion made by the Telecommunications Equipment Distribution Program Association 
(TEDPA).  TEDPA’s members are state equipment distribution programs located throughout the United States that 
have more than 30 years of experience with the distribution of CPE to people with disabilities.  Specifically, TEDPA 
had proposed a “reasonable capped administrative fee of 15-20% of the total cost associated with distribution of 
CPE and related services.”  NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5680, para. 91 (quoting TEDPA 
Comments at 4 in that proceeding).  Experience with the NDBEDP pilot program shows that TEDPA’s 
recommendation was accurate with respect to what state programs would need for these expenses. Although total 
administrative costs claimed by the 53 certified programs during the pilot program amounted to 16% of program 
costs paid in 2013-2014 and 19% in 2014-2015, less than 14% of program costs were actually paid.  See infra
Appendix C (Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures).  In 2014-2015, 19 certified programs were able to operate 
within the 15% cap on administrative costs, claims from 17 programs exceeded the 15% cap by less than $100, and 
claims submitted by 17 programs exceeded the 15% cap by more than $100.  See National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution Program (NDBEDP), http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedp/cnbw (follow “2014-2015 Reimbursement 
Requests per state” hyperlink).
502
See 47 CFR § 1.3; Northeast Cellular Telephone Co., L.P. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing 
WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969)).  Grant of such a waiver would not, however, permit the 
program’s total reimbursement to exceed its overall funding allocation.
503
See infra Part VII.E (NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
73
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.
504
  We believe that all of these measures, 
taken together, will help to alleviate burdens that the 15% administrative cap may have imposed during 
the pilot program.
VII. PROGRAM OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
A. Overview
166. Under the pilot program, the NDBEDP has been overseen by an NDBEDP Administrator, 
a Commission official designated by CGB.
505
  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.
506
  
167. In order to further ensure the effective and efficient implementation of the permanent 
NDBEDP, in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on the role of the NDBEDP Administrator, 
proposed performance goals and related performance measures, and their relationship to the information 
that certified programs are required to report to the Commission.
507
  We asked about ways to improve the 
efficiency of the reporting process and reduce duplication of data required for both reporting and 
reimbursement claims.
508
  We also sought comment on whether to modify some of the pilot program 
reporting obligations and proposed to create a centralized database to assist certified programs in the 
generation and submission of reports, facilitating the aggregation and analysis of nationwide data.
509
168. As discussed below, we affirm the current responsibilities of the NDBEDP 
Administrator.  In addition, we set 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.  We further direct 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, we streamline 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.  
169. We direct 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.  We direct 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 
                                                     
504
See CDBP Comments at 6; Perkins Comments at 51; see also IDBI Comments at 26.  But see LightHouse 
Comments at 7 (advocating for certified programs to be able to choose whether to use a centralized database, and if 
they are required to use a centralized database, “there should not be an administrative charge”).
505
See 47 CFR § 64.610(h)(1) (pilot program rule).  CGB designated Jacqueline Ellington, Attorney Advisor, 
Disability Rights Office, as the NDBEDP Administrator.
506
47 CFR § 64.610(g), (h)(1)(v) (pilot program rule).
507
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5258, para. 6.
508
Id. at 5269, para. 28 (noting that much of the data needed to generate the required reports is also required to 
generate reimbursement claims); id. at 5312, para. 110 (seeking comment on ways to streamline the reporting 
requirements).
509
Id. at 5269, para. 30.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
74
maintenance of the centralized database.
510
  The Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator shall also 
coordinate with the appropriate Commission offices to ensure compliance with applicable privacy and 
security requirements.
511
B. Program Oversight Responsibilities 
170. 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 our rules, maintaining the NDBEDP website, resolving stakeholder 
issues, and serving as the Commission’s point of contact for the NDBEDP.
512
  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.
513
171. Commenters and NDBEDP certified programs commend the responsiveness and support 
provided by the NDBEDP Administrator and the TRS Fund Administrator.
514
  We direct that the 
responsibilities listed above should continue to reside with the Bureau.
515
  In addition, we require the 
NDBEDP Administrator to coordinate with OMD regarding funding decisions.
516
  We also agree that 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.
517
  In addition, we direct 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.
518
  We believe that this process will continue to fulfill our 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.
519
                                                     
510
We expect that the costs of establishing a centralized database will be greater than the costs for maintaining its 
operations.  
511
For example, the Commission currently complies with the requirements of the Privacy Act with respect to the 
protection of personally identifiable information that the Commission receives in connection with the NDBEDP 
pilot program.  See Privacy Act Information, http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/privacy-act-information (last visited 
July 20, 2016); Privacy Act System of Records, 77 Fed. Reg. 2721 (Jan. 19, 2012) (FCC/CGB-3 NDBEDP System 
of Records Notice) http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/documents/records/FCC-CGB-3.pdf.  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.
512
47 CFR § 64.610(h)(1) (pilot program rule).  
513
See id. § 64.610(h)(2) (pilot program rule).  
514
See, e.g., CDBP Comments at 6 (Bureau oversight has been “open, fair, reasonable”); IDBI Comments at 4 
(NDBEDP Administrator’s quick response with solutions enables certified programs to operate smoothly); 
LightHouse Comments at 7 (“excellent responsiveness and support”); Perkins Comments at 57 (“exemplary, fair and 
reasonable oversight”); SRC/CBVI Comments at 6 (“exemplary job of overseeing this program”).
515
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5316-17, paras. 124-125 (seeking comment on this issue); see also 47 
CFR §§ 0.141(f), 0.361.  
516
47 CFR § 0.5(e) (requiring Bureau/Office coordination with the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) on 
recommendations “that may affect agency compliance with Federal financial management requirements”).
517
See generally IDBI Comments at 29; Perkins Comments at 58.  
518
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5317, para. 125 & n. 432 (seeking comment on this approach); see 
also VRS Reform Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 8666, para. 123 (delegating financial oversight of the TRS Fund to OMD).
519
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5316-17, para. 124.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked about the 
need to establish a process for certified programs to appeal payment withholdings, denials, or suspensions by the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
75
172. In addition to delegating policy oversight of the permanent NDBEDP to the Bureau, we 
delegate financial oversight of this program to the Managing Director and direct the Managing Director to 
work in coordination with the Bureau to ensure that all financial aspects of the program have adequate 
internal controls.
520
  These duties reasonably fall within OMD's current delegated authority to ensure that 
the Commission operates in accordance with federal financial statutes and guidance.
521
Such financial 
oversight must be consistent with TRS Orders, rules, and our 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.  
C. Performance Goals and Measures 
173. The NDBEDP 2015 NPRM noted that we have a responsibility to ensure these funds are 
spent efficiently and effectively.
522
  We 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.
523
  We stated our belief that clear performance goals and measures will enable the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
NDBEDP Administrator.  Id. at 5317, para. 126.  We conclude 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.  See, e.g., National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), 
http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedp/cnbw (follow “2012-2013 Reimbursement Requests per state” hyperlink) 
(showing $27,778.13 as the total amount of claims requested, but denied during the 2014-2015 Fund year); National 
Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedp/cnbw (follow 
“2014-2015 Reimbursement Requests per state” hyperlink) (showing $877.41 as the total amount of claims 
requested, but denied during the 2014-2015 Fund 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.  See, e.g., National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), 
http://www.rolkaloube.com/#!ndbedp/cnbw (follow “2014-2015 Reimbursement Requests per state” hyperlink) 
(including the amounts of reimbursement claims requested, but denied or “rejected”).  Under current rules, any 
certified program is permitted to appeal the denial of a reimbursement claim to the Commission.  47 CFR §§ 1.101-
1.117.
520
47 CFR § 0.11(a)(3)-(4) (stating that OMD will “[a]ssist the Chairman in carrying out the administrative and 
executive responsibilities” and “[a]dvise the Chairman and Commission on management, administrative, and related 
matters; review and evaluate the programs and procedures of the Commission; initiate action or make 
recommendations as may be necessary to administer the Communications Act most effectively in the public 
interest”); 47 CFR § 0.11(a)(8) (stating that OMD’s current responsibility is to “[p]lan and manage the 
administrative affairs of the Commission with respect to the functions of . . . budget and financial management”); 47 
CFR § 0.5(e) (requiring Bureau/Office coordination with OMD on recommendations “that may affect agency 
compliance with Federal financial management requirements”); see also TRS Fund Financial and Accounting 
Internal Controls, Letter Order, 26 FCC Rcd. 5099 (OMD 2011) (directing the TRS Fund Administrator to integrate 
specific measures into its internal controls structure over its finance and accounting operations, to ensure 
transparency of operations, and to provide efficient and effective operations). 
521
47 CFR § 0.5(e) (requiring Bureau/Office coordination with OMD on recommendations “that may affect agency 
compliance with Federal financial management requirements”).  
522
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5258, para. 6.  NDBEDP funds come from contributions by 
telecommunications service providers to the TRS Fund.
523
Id. (citing the GAO GPRA Guide and GPRAMA).  As the Commission has previously observed, it has a 
“responsibility to be a prudent guardian of the public’s resources.”  See High-Cost Universal Service Support; 
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service et al., Order on Remand and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 
FCC Rcd 4072, 4088, para. 29 (2010).  Ensuring that certified programs use available funds in cost-effective ways 
maximizes the impact of program funds and helps ensure that as many eligible recipients as possible are able to 
receive the support they need.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
76
Commission to determine whether the program is being used for its intended purpose and whether the 
funding for the program is accomplishing the intended results.
524
  
174. None of the commenters took issue with the Commission’s proposed statement of 
performance goals.
525
  Because we find the proposed goals accurately reflect the statutory purpose
526
and 
the goals and objectives stated in the Commission’s strategic plan,
527
we adopt the proposed performance 
goals, but revise 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.  We 
believe 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.
175. In establishing performance measures to assess progress relative to these goals, we are 
mindful of GAO’s advice that performance measures for each goal “should be limited to the vital few.”
528
  
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.
529
176. The few parties commenting on performance metrics, recommend that efficiency or cost-
effectiveness measures take into account factors such as the ages, locations, and primary modes of 
communication used by equipment recipients.
530
  Some suggest that we assess the effects of the program 
on consumers, by comparing “connectivity and quality of life” at initial assessment and completion of 
                                                     
524
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5258, para. 6.  
525
Perkins states that in order to establish meaningful performance goals and measures, the currently collected data 
elements need to change, but it does not disagree with our proposed goals.  Perkins Comments at 2.
526
See 47 U.S.C. 620(a) (stating that funds are to be used “for the distribution of specialized customer premises 
equipment designed to make telecommunications service, Internet access service, and advanced communications, 
including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, accessible by low-
income individuals who are deaf-blind”).
527
See, e.g., FCC, Strategic Plan 2015-18, Strategic Objectives 3.1 (“Maximize broadband availability and adoption 
by promoting affordability and removing other barriers to adoption by all Americans, including those with low 
incomes, older individuals, those in rural areas and tribal lands, and individuals with disabilities.”), 3.2 (“Ensure that 
universal service programs keep up with changing technologies and are well managed, efficient and fiscally 
responsible.”), 3.4 (“Ensure that the benefits of networks are harnessed to address the needs of Americans with 
disabilities.”), Performance Goals 3.1.2 (“Work in partnership with state, local, and tribal governments, and 
consumer and industry groups, to promote broadband availability to all Americans, including consumers in rural and 
high cost areas, older Americans, and people with disabilities.”), 3.4.1 (“Engage persons with disabilities through 
outreach and education initiatives to facilitate informed choice in the telecommunications and media marketplace.”), 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331866A1.pdf (last visited July 20, 2016).
528
GAO GPRA Guide at 25.  GAO explains that “[t]hose vital few measures should cover the key performance 
dimensions that will enable an organization to assess accomplishments, make decisions, realign processes, and 
assign accountability.  Organizations that seek to manage an excessive number of performance measures may risk 
creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify performance issues.  Limiting the number of 
performance measures to the vital few at each organizational level will not only keep the focus where it belongs, it 
will help ensure that the costs involved in collecting and analyzing the data do not become prohibitive.”  Id.
529
See also supra Part VI.E (Administrative Costs).
530
Perkins Comments at 2-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
77
training,
531
and that we consider increases in the percentage of the state’s deaf-blind population served by 
a program.
532
177. We conclude 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;
533
(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.
534
  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.  We recognize 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.
535
  However, we conclude 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.
536
  
Thus, while we will continue to undertake efforts to determine effective outcomes that result from 
successful participation in the NDBEDP through outreach and other efforts,
537
we conclude that imposing 
requirements for certified programs to gather this information on a regular basis would unduly burden 
their limited resources under this program.
538
                                                     
531
Keystone Systems, Inc. (Keystone) Comments at 7.
532
DRM Reply Comments at 4.
533
The Bureau might determine that a client’s age, urban or rural residence, language, and primary means of 
communication (e.g., Braille, ASL, etc.) are relevant for this purpose.  See Perkins Comments at 2-3; see also
Keystone Comments at 6 (noting that measuring consumer characteristics will help, e.g., “to identify needs related 
to trainers and services such as translators”).  Keystone reports that it “has worked with Perkins over the past three 
years to provide the database used to track activities in 34 states for the NDBEDP.”  Keystone Comments at 1.  
Having developed “a database application that is used by agencies providing K-12 textbooks for children that need 
them in alternate formats (braille, electronic files, or large type),” Keystone says it added customized capabilities to 
that application to enable Perkins and other certified programs to track NDBEDP activities and to produce reports 
and reimbursement claims.  Id. at 2.
534
The Bureau may find it important to measure elapsed time between initial contact and completion of installation 
and training.  See, e.g., Keystone Comments at 7 (recommending using multiple milestone dates to measure the 
length of time for service (e.g., first contact, application accepted, eligibility verified, assessment completed, 
equipment ordered, equipment delivered, training started, training completed)).  
535
See, e.g., id. (recommending measuring the change in connectivity and quality of life between the initial 
assessment and completion of training).  
536
Similarly, while we recognize the potential value in measuring the increase in the percentage of each state’s deaf-
blind population served by a program, as suggested by DRM (DRM Reply Comments at 4), we have not found a 
reliable source of estimates of such populations.  See supra note 12 (describing the unusually wide range of 
available estimates of the number of deaf-blind individuals in the United States).
537
During the pilot program, as part of its outreach responsibilities and oversight of several certified entities, Perkins 
has reported regularly on the many successes achieved as a result of participation in this program, including 
enhanced educational and job opportunities, and improved contact with family, friends, colleagues, businesses and 
governmental agencies.  See iCanConnect, News, http://www.icanconnect.org/news (last visited July 18, 2016).
538
See GAO GPRA Guide at 25.  For the NDBEDP, with annual funding capped at $10 million, average annual 
funding is less than $200,000 per jurisdiction.  Further, with the 15 percent cap on administrative costs, average 
administrative cost reimbursement is less than $30,000 per jurisdiction.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
78
178. The Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator are directed to implement metric parameters 
based on the above guidance.
539
  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.  We therefore authorize 
CGB to determine the most effective method for gathering the necessary information and weighing these 
metrics to evaluate program performance.  We expect 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 our program policy decisions.
540
  The data collected for these performance measures should also 
enhance our ability to develop baseline information and benchmarks for future assessments.
D. Reporting Requirements
179. 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.
541
  In 
the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to retain the reporting requirements and asked whether the 
substance of such reporting requirements should be retained or modified.
542
  After considering the 
comments received, we amend our rules to set forth more generally the categories of information that 
must be reported, and we direct 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.  
180. Many commenters advocate reducing the data submission requirements,
543
or eliminating 
redundancy in the data submission required for reimbursement and reporting purposes.
544
  In contrast, 
however, IDBI supports continuing the data requirements for reports and reimbursement claims in the 
                                                     
539
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.  See infra Part VII.E 
(NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement).  For example, there are a variety of possible 
measures of the promptness of service response.  See, e.g., Keystone at 7 (recommending efficiency measurement 
based on dates of first contact, application accepted, eligibility verified, assessment completed, equipment ordered, 
equipment delivered, training started, training completed).  The particular metric selected for this purpose, and how 
it is collected and reported into the database, may need to be refined based on further experience.
540
See, e.g., Perkins Comment at 3 (recommending consideration of a national database to “collect the data required 
to do trend analysis and meaningful performance measurement per certified entity, and for the program as a whole”).
541
See 47 CFR § 64.610(g)(1).
542
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5311, para. 109.
543
See, e.g.,  ATAP Comments at 2; ATK Comments at 3; ATLA Comments at 2; IOD Comments at 3; IPAT 
Comments at 2-3; MoAT Comments at 2; NDHHS Comments at 1 (stating that reporting requirements are excessive 
and time-consuming, particularly data on the time spent on various NDBEDP activities); SRC/CBVI Comments at 2 
(recommending elimination of the requirements to report certain contact information for the verifier of an 
applicant’s disability and the serial numbers for equipment, and suggesting that the costs for installation and training 
and related travel costs be combined into one cost category); WATAP Comments at 3. 
544
GACHI Comments at 11-12; NDHHS Comments at 1; SRC/CBVI Comments at 2-3. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
79
permanent NDBEDP,
545
and some commenters suggest additional categories of data they believe are 
necessary to measure performance.
546
  
181. We are mindful of the need to ensure that information collection requirements do not 
unnecessarily burden NDBEDP programs whose resources for program administration are quite limited.  
We further believe that our 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 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.
547
182. We also agree with commenters that, where data must already be reported for claim 
reimbursement, unnecessary duplication of effort should not be required.  For this purpose, below, we 
direct 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, we expect 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.
548
  
183. To provide the flexibility needed to effectively assess the permanent program’s 
performance, we adopt rules for the permanent program that set forth the categories of required 
information.  We direct the Bureau to delineate the specific data points required in the instructions on data 
reporting and database use issued by the NDBEDP Administrator.
549
  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.
550
  For this 
                                                     
545
IDBI Comments at 26-27.
546
Keystone Comments at 6-8; Perkins Comments at 2-4.
547
See Perkins Comments at 2 (advocating collection of age information because “the age of a consumer may 
impact training times”). 
548
This will be the case to the extent that the database is capable of processing both sets of data.  See Keystone 
Comments at 2-5 (describing numerous “lesson[s] learned” regarding data management in the course of three years’ 
experience operating the Perkins database, including the development of “well defined and unambiguous” data 
reporting categories).
549
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 we believe 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.  Where we have required TRS providers to obtain third party 
certification of a TRS user’s eligibility to use TRS – specifically for Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service 
(IP CTS) – we have required providers to maintain such certification documents in their records but have not 
required the submission of such documents to the Commission or TRS Fund Administrator as part of routine 
reporting.  See 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(9)(v), (x).
550
See VRS Reform Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 8653, para. 77 (“Our experience . . . has taught us that it may become 
necessary, over time, to modify the data that is to be stored in the [TRS User Registration database].”); see also
Keystone Comments at 2-5 (describing numerous “lesson learned” regarding data management in the course of three 
years’ experience operating the Perkins database, including the development of “well defined and unambiguous” 
data reporting categories).  This flexible approach will also enable adjustment of reporting requirements to 
harmonize with future refinement of performance metrics.  See supra Part VII.C (Performance Goals and Measures).  
Reporting requirements can be related more closely to the information required for claims reimbursement ensuring 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
80
purpose, we require reporting of information in each of the following categories, and allow 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;
551
(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.
552
  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.
184. Frequency of Reporting.  In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked about the advantages or 
disadvantages of allowing a certified program to submit reports with the same frequency as the certified 
program elects to submit its reimbursement claims (e.g., monthly, quarterly, or every six months).  We 
also asked whether the reporting period should be the same for all certified programs to ensure 
consistency of data and, if so, what that period should be.  Alternatively, we asked whether it would serve 
the permanent program just as well if submission of the reports were required annually instead of every 
six months.
553
185. Several commenters support our proposal to retain the six-months reporting 
requirement.
554
  Some of these commenters also note that an annual reporting requirement would be 
acceptable, but that shorter periods should not be considered.
555
  We believe that regular reporting is 
necessary to ensure that certified programs maintain and keep current NDBEDP-related data and to 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
that much of the information needed for semiannual reports can be automatically and efficiently generated from the 
data entered for reimbursement purposes, should programs choose to use it.  See Keystone Comments at 3-4.
551
We retain the requirement to report the identity of each individual who receives equipment because we believe 
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).  See, e.g., Perkins Comments at 16 (recommending that the database be configured to automatically flag 
the entry of a person with the same name and date of birth as a person entered by a different state); IDBI Comments 
at 12-13 (supporting access by certified programs to other states’ data to determine whether an applicant is receiving 
services from another state, which “lessen the chance of duplication of service” and reduce waste and fraud).  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 we adopt 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 personally identifiable information (PII), we caution 
CGB and the NDBEDP administrator to limit the level of detail of the PII collected to that needed for effective 
program oversight.  See infra Part VII.E.3 (Inclusion and Protection of Personally Identifiable Information in the 
Centralized Database).
552
Keystone Comments at 3 (recommending that the Commission require certified programs to submit actual data, 
rather than summarized data, to enable the best use and analysis of the information collected); Perkins Comments at 
3.
553
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5312, para. 110.
554
ATAP Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 4; ATK Comments at 5; ATLA Comments at 5; IDBI Comments at 27; 
IOD Comments at 5; IPAT Comments at 5; LightHouse Comments at 7 (suggesting also an ongoing evaluation to 
ensure that the data required provides “productive feedback to the program”); MoAT Comments at 3; Perkins 
Comments at 52; SRC/CBVI Comments at 5; WATAP Comments at 5.
555
ATAP Comments at 3; IPAT Comments at 5; MoAT Comments at 3; IPAT Comments at 5 (suggesting that it is 
not necessary to require reporting to be done at the same time by all certified entities to ensure consistency of data, 
and that only the collection of the same information is necessary for such purpose).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
81
provide accurate snapshots of that data consistently across all certified programs for oversight and 
evaluation purposes.  We will, therefore, retain the requirement for certified programs to submit reports 
every six months.  
186. 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.”
556
  
In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we 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.
557
We adopt the continued requirement for this report certification, as amended, which commenters 
support.
558
E. NDBEDP Centralized Database for Reporting and Reimbursement
1. Need for Centralized Database  
187. Many commenters support our proposal to create a centralized database, recognizing it 
will improve accuracy, analysis and aggregation of data.
559
  A few commenters offer more conditional 
support, asserting that the Commission should develop and require the use of a centralized database only 
if it reduces duplicate data entry and streamlines the reporting and reimbursement process.
560
  Still other 
commenters oppose any mandatory use of a centralized database.
561
  
                                                     
556
47 CFR § 64.610(g)(2); NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5312, para. 111.
557
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5312, para. 112.  
558
GACHI Comments at 30; IDBI Comments at 27; Perkins Comments at 53.  Likewise, we make this language 
change to our reimbursement claim certification, as proposed.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5312, n.398.  
559
HKNC Comments at 4 (contending that a centralized database would ensure that program personnel are entering 
data correctly and that required reports are generated in an acceptable format); Keystone Comments at 3, 6 (agreeing 
that “a national database will allow for much more consistent collection of data, and far easier and more 
standardized reporting,” and that the ability to reconcile data in a single system can reduce errors and omissions in 
the reporting process); ACB Comments at 2; CAAG Comments at 7-8; CDBP Comments at 3; IDBI Comments at 
10-11; Perkins Comments at 13; see also NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5269-70, paras. 30-31 (seeking 
comment on this issue).
560
ATAP Comments at 2; ATI Comments at 2-3; IPAT Comments at 3; MoAT Comments at 2.  Some commenters 
also suggest that the database will “allow multiple user input, different levels of administrative access, ease of 
querying and report generation.”  ATK Comments at 3; see also ATLA Comments at 3; IOD Comments at 3; 
WATAP Comments at 3.
561
GACHI Comments at 2; LightHouse Comments at 7.  As they have already developed their own database 
systems, these commenters argue that requiring use of a centralized federal database would waste those investments 
or require duplication of effort.  GACHI also claims that using a state-based database system is more cost-effective 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
82
188. We conclude that the benefits of a centralized database would be significant and 
outweigh any disadvantages.  As a number of commenters recognize, 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.
562
  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.
563
  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.
564
  A centralized database will also permit cost savings for individual states that currently incur 
their own expenses to organize and submit required reports.
565
  Finally, we find 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.
189. For all of these reasons, we direct the Bureau, in coordination with the NDBEDP 
Administrator, OMD and its CIO, to establish a centralized database for the 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,
566
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.
567
  The 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
and that delays resulting from unforeseen problems with a centralized database could be handled in a more timely 
manner by a state program.  GACHI Comments at 13-14.
562
See, e.g., CAAG Comments at 7-8; HKNC Comments at 4; Keystone Comments at 3, 9.  Currently, as noted in 
the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, more than 30 certified programs use Perkins’ database to generate reports and 
reimbursement claims required by the Commission.  NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5269, para. 29.  These 
include state programs for which Perkins is the certified entity and programs that have elected to use the database for 
a fee that is reimbursable to them as an administrative cost.  Id. at para. 29 & n.91.  Perkins has compiled reports 
with the aggregated data from those programs.  See, e.g., Year One Highlights; iCanConnect, Year 2 in Review, 
NDBEDP Monthly National Call (Dec. 14, 2014), http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001010881.  
Although some commenters argue that data reported by programs not using Perkins’ system could be added to the 
Perkins data to allow an effective Commission review of all information without undue difficulty (see, e.g., WATAP 
Comments at 2), the record suggests that aggregate data analysis will be facilitated by automation of the reporting 
process and the use of standardized data formats and fields.
563
HKNC Comments at 4; see also Keystone Comments at 9.
564
HKNC Comments at 4; see also Keystone Comments at 9.
565
See supra para. 165.
566
See 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 4017-19, paras. 154-55. 
567
See, e.g., National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publications, 
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html (last visited July 20, 2016).  NIST guidance covers such topics, 
including but not limited to firewalls, boundary protections, protective naming conventions, adoption of secure user 
authentication requirements, usage restrictions, continuous monitoring, plans of actions and milestones, and proper 
continuity and disaster recovery plans.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
83
centralized database also must have subscriber notification procedures in the event of a breach that are 
compliant with Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
568
and OMB guidance.
190. 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.  We also recognize that some certified programs have invested in the development of 
their own databases for tracking and reporting NDBEDP-related activities.
569
Therefore, to reduce any 
costs that may be associated with entering data in both a state-specific and a national database, we direct 
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.  
2. Use of the Centralized Database for Reimbursement Claims  
191. Because of the overlap between the semiannual reports and reimbursement claims, the 
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM proposed to enable and permit, but not require, certified programs to use the 
centralized reporting database to also generate reimbursement claims.
570
  We asked whether such use 
should be voluntary or mandatory, would make the process of aggregating reimbursement claim data 
more efficient, and whether the data could be transmitted electronically from the centralized database to 
the TRS Fund Administrator, along with the necessary supporting documentation.
571
192. The majority of commenters support the Commission’s proposal to allow, but not require, 
use of the centralized database for claims reimbursement, giving as reasons the existence of databases or 
processes that already fulfill their needs for filing claims, and concerns with new burdens that would be 
associated with transmitting claim documentation.
572
  We are persuaded that using the centralized 
database to generate reimbursement claims should be permissive.  We believe 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, we also recognize 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, we direct 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 
                                                     
568
The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team within DHS issues regulations around breach.
569
To be clear, nothing in this Report and Order prevents individual programs from continuing to use state-specific 
data bases for their own tracking purposes.  We only require 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.  
570
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5269, 5270, 5307, paras. 28, 31, 103.
571
Id. at 5270, para. 31.
572
See, e.g., HKNC Comments at 4 (reporting that the Perkins database, which it currently uses for the NDBEDP 
programs it operates in three states, “supports our reimbursement request process in an effective and cost efficient 
manner”); LightHouse Comments at 4 (claiming it is satisfied with the current reimbursement process and turn-
around time for submitting reimbursement claims); Perkins Comments at 14, 49 (opposing mandatory use of a 
centralized database for reimbursement because some programs must integrate their reimbursement information 
with larger internal accounting systems and transmitting claim documentation would be difficult to achieve and may 
be more labor intensive for certified programs than the current system); IDBI Comments at 11, 26 (expressing 
satisfaction with the current reimbursement process); ATAP Comments at 2; ATI Comments at 2-3; ATK 
Comments at 3; ATLA Comments at 2; IOD Comments at 3; IPAT Comments at 3; MoAT Comments at 2; 
WATAP Comments at 3.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
84
the information needed to enable reports to be generated and submitted electronically, and to generate 
reimbursement claims.
573
193. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we asked whether certified programs would need to retain 
a copy of their records if we establish a centralized database for processing reimbursement claims and 
reporting purposes and, if so, which records should be retained by the certified programs.
574
  We conclude 
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.
575
  We do not envision 
that the database will be a repository for all records that a certified program must retain
576
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.
577
3. Inclusion and Protection of Personally Identifiable Information in the 
Centralized Database  
194. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to permit the NDBEDP Administrator and 
other appropriate FCC staff to search the centralized database and generate reports to analyze nationwide 
data on the NDBEDP.
578
  We asked whether certain data should be excluded from the centralized 
database – for example, whether clients should be given a unique identifying (ID) number, which could 
be entered into the database in lieu of their names and other personally identifiable information (PII).
579
  
We sought comment on how to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of PII and proposed that access to
the centralized database be limited to authorized entities under tightly controlled conditions subject to 
procedures, protocols, and other safeguards established by the database administrator.
580
  
                                                     
573
See Keystone Comments at 5-6.  In Keystone’s experience, generating reports and claims “was quite simple and 
straight forward when the data was all managed within the same system.”  Id. at 6.  On the other hand, 
inconsistencies arose when certified programs managed their reimbursement data separately, suggesting that the 
ability to reconcile data in a single system can reduce errors and omissions in the reporting process.  Id.  
574
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5315-16, para. 122.
575
See IDBI Comments at 28 (recommending that certified programs retain a copy of their records in paper and 
electronic format as a backup to any centralized database).
576
See infra Part VII.F (Audits and Record Retention).
577
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5316, para. 122 (seeking comment on the appropriate format for 
program records); Perkins Comments at 56 (contending that electronic recordkeeping should satisfy record retention 
requirements); GACHI Comments at 34 (suggesting that each certified program should maintain a database into 
which supporting documentation can be scanned, in order to comply with documentation requirements, reduce paper 
files, and facilitate record transfer to another certified program).
578
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5271, para. 34.  
579
Id. at 5271, para. 33.  Additionally, we asked whether certified programs may be prohibited by state regulation 
from storing data out of state and whether these prohibitions or other factors would prevent the input of the types of 
data described above – or any other related types of data – into a centralized database.  Id.  No commenter reports 
the existence of any such state regulations or other factors that would prevent input of data into a centralized 
database.  Although IDBI states that it is not clear which type of information or data might be impacted, it believes 
“there are ways to work this issue out with the state regulations” to enable the submission of the data.  IDBI 
Comments at 12.  
580
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5271, para. 34.  The database administrator will be the entity selected by 
the Commission to develop and maintain the NDBEDP centralized database.  See infra Part VII.E.5 (Database 
Administration).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
85
195. Some commenters express concerns about maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of 
information about consumers and program personnel that will be submitted to the database.
581
  In 
addition, a few commenters express concerns about ensuring that the centralized database meets Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) standards.
582
  Several commenters suggest 
that it would be more secure for names and addresses of equipment recipients to be maintained only at the 
program level.
583
  In contrast, Keystone Systems, Inc. (Keystone) supports including the identity of 
equipment recipients in the centralized database to achieve greater security than e-mail attachments, and 
to verify whether consumers have applied for equipment and services in multiple states.
584
196. We conclude 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.
585
  Further, HIPAA does not pose any 
major impediment to the inclusion of PII in the centralized database.  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.”
586
  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.”
587
  
                                                     
581
See, e.g., ATAP Comments at 3; GACHI Comments at 2; IDBI Comments at 12; IPAT Comments at 3; MoAT 
Comments at 2; Perkins Comments at 16.  Seattle Lighthouse stresses that confidentiality is an important value 
within the DeafBlind community, which “should be reflected in the types of information collected and shared.”  
Seattle Lighthouse Comments at 5.  GACHI also notes that sensitive information is also reported to the Commission 
about program personnel, such as salary data.  GACHI Comments at 10, 11, 26 (stating that it is “unsure about the 
centralized database and what information may be disclosed to other states such as salaries, etc.”).
582
ATI Comments at 3; ATK Comments at 3; ATLA Comments at 3; IOD Comments at 3; WATAP Comments at 
3; see also Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 100 Stat. 2548 (1996) 
(HIPAA).  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services adopted Standards for Privacy of Individually 
Identifiable Health Information (Privacy Rule) to implement HIPAA.  The Privacy Rule standards address the use 
and disclosure of individuals’ protected health information by organizations subject to the Privacy Rule (covered 
entities), as well as standards for individuals’ privacy rights to understand and control how their health information 
is used.  See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Summary of the HIPAA 
Privacy Rule (last revised May 2003), http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/privacysummary.pdf.
583
For example, IDBI and IPAT claim that using unique ID numbers or codes in lieu of names, and entering these 
into a local database would make such data more resistant to hackers.  IDBI Comments at 12; IPAT Comments at 3;
see also ATLA Comments at 3; IOD Comments at 3.  WATAP notes it is unaware of other federal programs that 
require PII to be submitted to the national sponsor, opting instead to keep client data at the local level.  WATAP 
Comments at 3 (citing programs administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration and the Administration 
on Community Living); see also LightHouse Comments at 3-4 (reporting that quarterly reports required by state 
participants in certain federal programs under the Department of Education exclude consumer names).
584
Keystone Comments at 9.
585
See id. (noting that if ID numbers are used in lieu of names and other PII for submission to the centralized 
database, it may not be possible to track data effectively for consumers who participate in more than one state 
program).
586
45 CFR § 164.501.
587
Id. at § 164.512(d)(1).  Such activities include “audits; civil, administrative, or criminal investigations; 
inspections; licensure or disciplinary actions; civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings or actions; or other 
activities necessary for appropriate oversight of:  (i) The health care system; (ii) Government benefit programs for 
which health information is relevant to beneficiary eligibility; (iii) Entities subject to government regulatory 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
86
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.
588
197. While we will not exclude PII from the centralized database, we agree with commenters 
that privacy and security are key considerations that we must consider in the collection and maintenance 
of this information.  Accordingly, we direct the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator to limit the 
amount of PII collected to that needed for effective program oversight.  We also agree with commenters 
that 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.
589
  Additionally, consistent with the Commission’s 
determinations in the VRS Reform Order regarding the TRS User Registration Database, we require 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.
590
  The database administrator shall allow certified programs to access and use the 
database only for the reasons specified in this Part VII.E, and to determine whether information 
previously entered in the database is correct and complete.  Moreover, we specifically prohibit 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 continuity of 
service to such clients or for the efficient administration of the program.  
198. We conclude 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.
591
  To the extent possible and appropriate, certified programs should be informed specifically 
about how data will be secured.
592
  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, Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 
(FISMA), and any other applicable privacy and security requirements.  
4. Access to Other Programs’ Data and Aggregate Data
199. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we also asked to what extent a certified program should be 
permitted access to other programs’ data or aggregate data and the extent to which the NDBEDP 
Administrator should be able to allow other entities to access the database.
593
  Commenters generally 
support providing different levels of access to the information in the database, giving the highest level of 
access to the NDBEDP Administrator and other appropriate Commission staff, and permitting certified 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
programs for which health information is necessary for determining compliance with program standards; or (iv) 
Entities subject to civil rights laws for which health information is necessary for determining compliance.”  Id.
588
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.
589
See, e.g., IDBI Comments at 12-13; CDBP Comments at 3 (concurring).
590
See VRS Reform Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 8652-53, para. 76 (adopting safeguards similar to those set forth in this 
paragraph).
591
Keystone Comments at 11.
592
See, e.g., ATAP Comments at 3; ATI Comments at 3; ATLA Comments at 3; IOD Comments at 3; IPAT 
Comments at 2-3; WATAP Comments at 3.  
593
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5271, para. 34.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
87
programs to have access to their own information but not the information of other programs.
594
  One 
commenter suggests that trainers and assessors should be able to access PII associated with consumers 
assigned to them and that certified programs should be able to access PII to determine whether a 
consumer has been entered into the database by another certified program.
595
Other commenters caution 
that access to the database by “any trainers, assessors or other subcontractors” should not be permitted 
without tight controls.
596
  
200. We conclude 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-personally identifiable information 
about other state programs or about the NDBEDP as a whole.
597
5. Database Administration  
201. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we stated that we would consider a variety of approaches 
to establishing a centralized database.  These included using existing staff and resources, using another 
agency’s information technology experience to provide administrative support through an interagency 
agreement, pursuing a competitive procurement, modifying a contract with an existing contractor, inviting 
entities to apply to perform this function, and using a combination of these approaches.
598
202. Although several commenters recommend that the Commission invite entities via a 
public notice to submit applications to develop and maintain the database,
599
we conclude 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.  We further conclude 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. We direct 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 
                                                     
594
ATK Comments at 3; ATLA Comments at 3; CAAG Comments at 9; CDBP Comments at 3; GACHI Comments 
at 11; IOD Comments at 3; Keystone Comments at 10-11; LightHouse Comments at 4; WATAP Comments at 3.  
595
Keystone Comments at 10, 11 (noting that some assessors and trainers work in multiple states); see also, e.g., 
CAAG Comments at 9; IDBI Comments at 12-13 (supporting access by certified programs to other states’ data to 
determine whether an applicant is receiving services from another state, which “lessen the chance of duplication of 
service” and reduce waste and fraud).  
596
ATK Comments at 3; see also ATLA Comments at 3; IOD Comments at 3; WATAP Comments at 3; SRC/CBVI 
Comments at 3 (asserting that PII about its clients should not be available to anyone except Commission staff and 
the TRS Fund Administrator); Perkins Comments at 16 (urging that “specific consumer-related information should 
only be available to people who work directly with the consumer and/or manage the state program”).  SRC/CBVI 
also reports that, consistent with its obligations under HIPAA, it “cannot allow other state programs to be able to 
access the names of [its] clients.” SRC/CBVI Comments at 3; see also GACHI Comments at 2, 11 (noting concerns 
about the need to comply with HIPAA requirements).
597
Perkins Comments at 16 (suggesting that programs should have access to aggregated information about “types of 
equipment, and rolled-up, aggregate information about time/costs for assessments and trainings, number distributed 
for types of equipment (e.g. braille displays, etc.)”); see also ACB Comments at 2-3; IDBI Comments at 12.
598
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5272-73, para. 37.
599
See ATAP Comments at 2; ATI Comments at 2-3; ATK Comments at 3; ATLA Comments at 3; IOD Comments 
at 3; MoAT Comments at 2; WATAP Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
88
interagency agreement, a competitive procurement, or a modification of an existing agency contract.
600
  
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, we further direct the Bureau and the NDBEDP Administrator, in conjunction with the 
Managing Director and CIO, to initiate or direct such modifications as needed.
601
F. Audits and Record Retention
203. 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.
602
  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.
603
  
204. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to retain these requirements and also to 
require that each certified program submit a copy of its annual audit to the TRS Fund Administrator and 
the NDBEDP Administrator.
604
  We also proposed to affirm guidance previously provided by the Bureau 
regarding the standard governing annual audits.
605
  We further proposed to require certified programs to 
document compliance with all Commission requirements governing the NDBEDP,
606
and that any 
program that fails to fully cooperate in audits directed by the Commission should be subject to automatic 
suspension of NDBEDP payments until sufficient documentation is provided.
607
  Finally, we proposed to 
set the minimum record retention period for the permanent program at five years,
608
the same period 
required by the Commission’s TRS rules.
609
  
205. Some commenters support the continuation of the annual audit requirement,
610
while 
others contend that it is not necessary given the current reimbursement and reporting requirements, where 
                                                     
600
The comments provide useful suggestions to be considered in the selection of a database administrator.  See, e.g., 
Keystone Comments at 14 (recommends that the criteria for selection of an administrator include experience in the 
“development and management of an existing system of similar scope and complexity,” as well as “proven 
experience in developing accessible solutions, and supporting users of assistive technology”); Perkins Comments at 
18 (suggesting that the administrator have experience in database development and meeting the accessibility 
requirements of users with a wide range of capabilities).
601
See VRS Reform Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 8653, para. 77 (“Our experience . . . has taught us that it may become 
necessary, over time, to . . . make changes to the way the database is administered, structured, or interacted with so 
as to ensure the efficient administration of the program.”).
602
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(vii), (j)(3); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5684, para. 101.
603
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(viii); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5684-85, para. 101.  The 
Commission did not specify the format in which those records must be retained.  NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 
FCC Rcd at 5684-85, para. 101.
604
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5313, para. 114.
605
Id. at 5313, para. 115; NDBEDP FAQ 25-27.
606
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5315, para. 121.
607
Id. at 5314, para. 117.
608
Id. at 5315, para. 121.  
609
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(7), (c)(9)(x), (c)(11)(iv), 64.631(a)(2).
610
GACHI Comments at 33; IDBI Comments at 27-28; Perkins Comments at 55.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
89
each invoice and line item cost is examined.
611
  We will retain the requirement for certified programs to 
conduct annual audits in the permanent NDBEDP because we conclude that annual audits are needed “to 
ensure the fiscal integrity of the program.”
612
  As we proposed in the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, and as 
supported in the record, we clarify 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.
613
  
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.
614
  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.
615
206. The record also supports our proposals to continue to require certified programs to submit 
to an audit arranged by the Commission or its delegated authorities,
616
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.
617
  While the Commission has not undertaken 
any audits of certified programs during the pilot program, to date, we conclude that it is fiscally prudent to 
continue to require certified programs to submit to such audits.  In addition, we find that this automatic 
suspension policy will promote transparency, accountability, and assure the integrity of the TRS Fund.
207. Further, we 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.
618
  As 
proposed, we clarify that “evidence that a state program may not be in compliance with those rules” is not 
a prerequisite to such a documentation request.
619
  As we 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.
620
  We affirm 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 
                                                     
611
ATK Comments at 5; ATLA Comments at 5; IOD Comments at 5; IPAT Comments at 5; WATAP Comments at 
6. See supra Parts VI.D (Documentation of Reimbursement Claims), VII.D (Reporting Requirements).
612
Perkins Comments at 55.
613
GACHI Comments at 33; IDBI Comments at 27-28.
614
See NDBEDP FAQ 25.
615
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5313, para. 115; NDBEDP FAQ 26.  
616
GACHI Comments at 33; IDBI Comments at 27-28.
617
GACHI Comments at 33; IDBI Comments at 27-28.  
618
47 CFR § 64.610(j)(3) (pilot program rule).
619
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5314, para. 118.
620
Id. at 5315, para. 121.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
90
upon request from the Bureau, the NDBEDP Administrator, OMD, the TRS Fund Administrator, 
Commission, or law enforcement.
621
208. Finally, we adopt the proposal to require record retention for five years, a period that is 
supported by a number of commenters
622
and is consistent with the Commission’s TRS and Lifeline 
rules.
623
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.  
G. Whistleblower Protections
209. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to retain the whistleblower protections in the 
Commission’s rules for the permanent NDBEDP.
624
  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.
625
  Certified 
programs must include these whistleblower protections with the information they provide about the 
program in any employee handbooks or manuals, on their websites, and in other appropriate 
publications.
626
210. Commenters discussing the whistleblower provisions, support their retention.
627
  Because 
we continue to believe that these whistleblower protections help to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and 
abuse, we will retain these requirements for the permanent NDBEDP.
H. Complaints
211. In the NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, we proposed to adopt rules, modeled after the 
Commission’s complaint processes for telecommunications and TRS providers, to facilitate the receipt 
and processing of informal consumer complaints filed with the Commission regarding NDBEDP.
628
  
Specifically, we 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.
629
  
                                                     
621
See id. at 5316, para. 122 (seeking comment on the appropriate format for program records); Perkins Comments 
at 56 (contending that electronic recordkeeping should satisfy record retention requirements); GACHI Comments at 
34 (suggesting that each certified program should maintain a database into which supporting documentation can be 
scanned, in order to comply with documentation requirements, reduce paper files, and facilitate record transfer to 
another certified program).
622
CDBP Comments at 6; IDBI Comments at 28.
623
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 54.417, 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(7), (c)(9)(x), (c)(11)(iv), 64.631(a)(2).
624
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5314, para. 119; see also 47 CFR § 64.610(i).
625
47 CFR § 64.610(i)(1) (pilot program rule).
626
Id. at § 64.610(i)(2) (pilot program rule).
627
GACHI Comments at 33; IDBI Comments at 28; Perkins Comments at 55.
628
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5318, paras. 128-129; see also, e.g., 47 CFR § 6.15-6.23 (rules previously 
adopted to enforce Section 255 of the Act); 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(6)(v) (procedures for informal and formal 
complaints against TRS providers).  
629
NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5318, para. 129.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
91
212. We hereby adopt the proposed complaint procedures, which are generally supported by 
the commenters.
630
  Under these procedures, informal complaints related to the NDBEDP will be 
processed by the Bureaus’ Disability Rights Office (DRO) complaints division and the NDBEDP 
Administrator.
631
  This informal complaint process is intended to facilitate resolution of complaints 
between the parties whenever possible.
632
  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.
633
VIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
213. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification.  Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980,
634
the Commission’s Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification (FRFC) is contained in Appendix E.  
The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including the FRFC, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
214. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.  The Report and Order adopts new 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
635
  The new 
information collection requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.
636
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are 
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In 
addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
198,
637
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.”
638
                                                     
630
See, e.g., HKNC Comments at 12; IDBI Comments at 29; Perkins Comments at 59.  No commenter objected to 
the proposed complaint procedures.  
631
Informal complaints may be transmitted to the Commission via any reasonable means, such as by letter, fax, 
telephone, TTY, or e-mail.  When the Commission’s Consumer Help Center is updated, informal complaints may 
also be transmitted online.  Consumers who need assistance filing an informal complaint may also contact the FCC 
Disability Rights Office at dro@fcc.gov, or call 202-418-2517 (voice), 202-418-2922 (TTY), or 1-844-432-2275 
(videophone).
632
We modify slightly our rule governing the handling of informal complaints to reflect that there will often be 
follow-up communications with consumers, even when complaints may appear to have been satisfied.  Specifically, 
we delete the final phrase from the proposed provision that read:  “Where it appears from the NDBEDP certified 
program’s answer, or from other communications with the parties, that an informal complaint has been satisfied, the 
Commission may, in its discretion, consider the matter closed without further response to the complainant or the 
NDBEDP certified program.”  See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5341, Appendix F (Proposed Rule 
Changes).
633
See 47 CFR §§ 1.720 – 1.736. 
634
5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.
635
Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995); 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520.
636
44 U.S.C. § 3507(d).
637
Id. at § 3506(c)(4).
638
See NDBEDP 2015 NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 5320, para. 135.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
92
C. Congressional Review Act
215. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
639
D. Materials in Accessible Formats
216. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, or audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2275 (videophone), or 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).  
IX. ORDERING CLAUSES
217. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, 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, this Report and 
Order IS ADOPTED and the Commission’s rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix 
D.
218. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Report and Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 
days after publication of a summary in the Federal Register, except as otherwise specified in these 
Ordering Clauses.
219. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following rules adopted herein, 47 CFR §§ 
64.6207, 64.6209, 64.6211, 64.6213, 64.6215, 64.6217, and 64.6219, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE on the 
date specified in a notice published in the Federal Register announcing the approval by OMB of the 
information collection requirements of such rules under the PRA.
220. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following rules adopted herein, 47 CFR §§ 
64.6201, 64.6203, and 64.6205, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017.
221. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 regard to the NDBEDP pilot program 
remain pending.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
639
5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
93
APPENDIX A
List of Commenters
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMENTERS
NDBEDP Certified 
Program
DATE Received
Access Technologies, Inc. (ATI) Oregon / since 2012 July 27, 2015
American Association of the Deaf-Blind 
(AADB)
July 28, 2015
American Council of the Blind (ACB) July 22, 2015
Assistive Technology for Kansans (ATK) Kansas / since 2012 July 27, 2015
Assistive Technology of Alaska (ATLA) Alaska / since 2012 July 27, 2015
Association of Assistive Technology Act 
Programs (ATAP)
July 27, 2015
Center for Deaf-Blind Persons, Inc. (CDBP) July 27, 2015
Communication Axess Ability Group d/b/a 
StarVRS  (CAAG)
1 July 27, 2015
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands Office of Vocational Rehabilitation 
(CNMI OVR)
July 30, 2015
Equifax Workforce Solutions (Equifax) July 21, 2015
Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired 
(GACHI)
Georgia / since 2012 July 27, 2015
Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind 
Youth and Adults (HKNC)
New York / since 2012
Iowa / since 2014
July 27, 2015
International DeafBlind Institution (IDBI) July 27, 2015
Institute on Disabilities at Temple University 
(IOD)
Pennsylvania / since 2012 July 24, 2015
Interagency Program for Assistive Technology 
(IPAT)
North Dakota / since 2012 July 27, 2015
Keystone Systems, Inc. (Keystone) July 27, 2015
LightHouse for the Blind and Visually 
Impaired (LightHouse)
California / since 2012 July 28, 2015
Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle 
Lighthouse)
July 30, 2015
Missouri Assistive Technology (MoAT) Missouri / since 2012 July 27, 2015
Northeast Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services, 
Inc. (NDHHS)
New Hampshire / since 2012 July 29, 2015
Perkins School for the Blind (Perkins) Various / since 2012 July 24, 2015
State Rehabilitation Council for the New 
Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually 
Impaired (SRC/CBVI)
New Jersey (CBVI) / since 
2012
June 10, 2015
and
July 27, 2015
Washington Assistive Technology Act 
Program (WATAP)
July 27, 2015
                                                     
1
As of March 31, 2016, CAAG ceased providing video relay services (VRS) and VRSdb (a service that allows deaf-
blind individuals to communicate expressively in American Sign Language and receptively in text or Braille).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
94
INDIVIDUAL COMMENTERS
Larry P. Johnson (Johnson) July 2, 2015
Mellanie Lee (Lee) July 22, 2015
Laura White (White) July 27, 2015
REPLY COMMENTERS
Communication Axess Ability Group d/b/a 
StarVRS (CAAG)
August 10, 2015
Disability Rights Maine (DRM)
2
Maine / since 2015 August 6, 2015
Ex Parte
Bryen M. Yunashko June 6, 2016
Perkins School for the Blind June 22, 2016
                                                     
2
The Maine Center on Deafness (MCD) served as the NDBEDP certified program from 2012 until MCD closed in 
2015.  Disability Rights Maine (DRM) hired former MCD staff to continue the programs and services previously 
provided by MCD.  The Commission selected DRM to replace MCD.  See Commission Announces Entity Selected 
for Certification to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program for Maine, Public 
Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 8296 (CGB 2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
95
APPENDIX B
NDBEDP Pilot Program Certified Entities
State July 2012
Changes
Since July 2012
Alabama Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind
Alaska Assistive Technology of Alaska
Arizona Perkins School for the Blind
Arkansas Perkins School for the Blind
California
Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually 
Impaired
Colorado
Colorado Commission for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing
Connecticut Connecticut Tech Act Project
Delaware
University of Delaware – Center For 
Disabilities Studies
Florida Florida Telecommunications Relay, Inc.
Helen Keller National Center for 
Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults
Georgia Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired
Hawaii Island Skill Gathering
Helen Keller National Center for 
Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults
Idaho
University of Idaho – Idaho Assistive 
Technology Project
Illinois
The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who 
Are Blind or Visually Impaired
Indiana Indiana State University Perkins School for the Blind
Iowa Iowa Utilities Board
Helen Keller National Center for 
Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults
Kansas Assistive Technology for Kansans
Kentucky
Eastern Kentucky University Center on 
Deafness and Hearing Loss
Louisiana
Affiliated Blind of Louisiana Training 
Center
Maine Maine Center on Deafness Disability Rights Maine
Maryland Perkins School for the Blind
Massachusetts Perkins School for the Blind
Michigan Michigan Commission for the Blind Perkins School for the Blind
Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Human Services 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service 
Division
Perkins School for the Blind
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
96
State July 2012
Changes
Since July 2012
Mississippi The Arc of Mississippi Perkins School for the Blind
Missouri Missouri Assistive Technology
Montana Perkins School for the Blind
Nebraska
Nebraska Commission for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing
Nebraska Assistive Technology 
Partnership
Nevada
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Advocacy 
Resource Center
Perkins School for the Blind
New Hampshire
Northeast Deaf and Hard of Hearing 
Services, Inc.
New Jersey
New Jersey Commission for the Blind and 
Visually Impaired
New Mexico Perkins School for the Blind
New York
Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-
Blind Youth and Adults
North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Services for
the Deaf and the Hard of Hearing
North Dakota
Interagency Program for Assistive 
Technology
Ohio Ohio Deaf-Blind Outreach Program
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation 
Services
Oregon Access Technologies, Inc.
Pennsylvania
Institute on Disabilities – Temple 
University
Rhode Island Perkins School for the Blind
South Carolina Perkins School for the Blind
South Dakota
South Dakota Department of Human 
Services
Tennessee Tennessee Regulatory Authority
Texas Perkins School for the Blind
Utah Utah Public Service Commission Perkins School for the Blind
Vermont
Vermont Center for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing
Perkins School for the Blind
Virginia
Virginia Department for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing
Virginia Department for the 
Blind and Vision Impaired
Washington
Department of Social and Health Services 
– Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Perkins School for the Blind
West Virginia Perkins School for the Blind
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
97
State July 2012
Changes
Since July 2012
Wisconsin Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Wyoming
Wyoming Institute for Disabilities –
University of Wyoming
Washington, DC Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind
Puerto Rico Perkins School for the Blind
U.S. Virgin Islands Perkins School for the Blind
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
98
APPENDIX C
Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures
2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015
1
Available 
Funding
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Amount 
Used
% Used
Amount 
Used
% Used
Amount 
Used
% Used
Program and 
Administrative 
Costs
$9,500,000 $6,257,608 65.87% $8,860,194 93.27% $8,338,334 87.77%
National 
Outreach
$500,000 $500,000 100.00% $500,000 100.00% $500,000 100.00%
TOTAL $10,000,000 $6,757,608 67.58% $9,360,194 93.60% $8,838,334 88.38%
Average Expenditures per Person 2012-2015
Pilot Program Expenditures 2012-2013 = $6,757,608 
Pilot Program Expenditures 2013-2014 = $9,360,194
Pilot Program Expenditures 2014-2015 = $8,838,334
Total Pilot Program Expenditures 2012-2015
2
= $24,956,136
Number of Unique Individuals Served 2012-2015
3
= 3,323
Average Expenditures per Person = $7,510
Summary of Pilot Program Expenditures for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015
4
2013-2014:  Of the total expenditures of $9,360,194 in 2013-2014, $500,000 was allocated and used for 
national outreach. The remaining $8,860,194 was used by the 53 certified programs as follows:  
? 75.07% serving individuals (7.70% on assessments, 46.13% to purchase and distribute equip-
ment, and 21.24% to install the equipment and train recipients how to use the equipment); and 
? 24.93% establishing, promoting, and administering the programs (3.43% for demonstration 
equipment, 10.30% on local outreach, and 11.20% to cover administrative costs).
2014-2015:  Of the total expenditures of $8,838,334 in 2014-2015, $500,000 was allocated and used for 
national outreach. The remaining $8,338,334 was used by the 53 certified programs as follows:  
? 71.35% serving individuals (6.30% on assessments, 40.60% to purchase and distribute equip-
ment, and 24.45% to install the equipment and train recipients how to use the equipment); and 
? 28.66% establishing, promoting, and administering the programs (3.90% for demonstration 
equipment, 12.81% on local outreach, and 11.95% to cover administrative costs).
                                                     
1
Data provided by the TRS Fund Administrator, as of July 26, 2016.
2
Based on data provided by the TRS Fund Administrator, as of July 26, 2016.
3
Based on reports of NDBEDP activities filed by all 53 certified programs with the Commission as of July 11, 
2016, 1,128 unique individuals were served during pilot program year 2012-2013, 1,025 new individuals were 
served during 2013-2014, and 1,170 new individuals were served during 2014-2015, for a total of 3,323 unique 
individuals served during the first three years of the pilot program.
4
Based on data provided by the TRS Fund Administrator, as of July 26, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
99
Pilot Program Expenditures for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 by Category of Expense
5
2013-2014 2014-2015
Amount 
Used
%
Amount 
Used
%
Program and 
Administrative Costs
$8,860,194 100.00% $8,338,334 100.00%
Program Costs $7,867,542 88.80% $7,342,231 88.05%
State and Local 
Outreach
$912,312 10.30% $1,068,355 12.81%
Outreach Events $333,830 $155,016 
Program Information $219,616 $202,649 
Advertisement $255,567 $607,794 
In State Travel $57,596 $64,917 
Aids and Services $12,791 $12,821 
Other $32,912 $25,158 
Assessments $682,333 7.70% $525,151 6.30%
Eligibility Verification $153,659 $98,051
Communications $317,508 $217,048 
Travel $163,637 $141,611
Aids and Services $29,793 $28,410 
Other $17,736 $40,032
Equipment 
Distributed
$4,087,511 46.13% $3,385,109 40.60%
Specialized 
Equipment
$1,631,428 $1,291,903
Off the Shelf 
Hardware
$1,579,870 $1,267,215
Software Applications $346,486 $310,217
Upgrades $24,266 $41,192 
Travel $6,101 $9,947
Maintenance, Repairs, 
and Warranties
$192,323 $220,919
Accessories $177,067 $152,483
Alert Devices $55,829 $32,783 
Shipping $51,039 $42,100 
Partial Payment $ - $(23)
Miscellaneous $2,736 $192
                                                     
5
Data provided by the TRS Fund Administrator, as of July 26, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
100
Equipment
Other $20,368 $16,181 
2013-2014 2014-2015
Amount 
Used
%
Amount 
Used
%
Demonstration 
Equipment
$303,799 3.43% $324,902 3.90%
Installation and 
Training
$1,881,587 21.24% $2,038,714 24.45%
Installation $350,497 $223,701
Training $854,131 $956,794
Travel $526,452 $627,592
Instructional Materials $1,287 $4,540 
Aids and Services $116,759 $191,677
Other $32,460 $34,410 
Administrative Costs 
Paid
$992,652 11.20% $996,103 11.95%
Administrative Costs 
Claimed 
$1,225,535 13.83% $1,408,751 16.89%
Administrative Costs 
not Paid
$232,883 2.63% $412,648 4.95%
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
101
APPENDIX D
Final Rules
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend Title 
47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Part 64 – MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
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. 
2.  Add subpart GG, sections 64.6201 through 64.6219, to read as follows:
Part 64, Subpart GG – National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program
§ 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.
§ 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
102
(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 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.
§ 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.
§ 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
103
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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
104
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 
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;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
105
(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. 
§ 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 paragraphs (1) or (2). 
(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 paragraph (c) of section 64.6203 of this part).  Such attestation 
shall include the attesting professional’s full name, title, and contact information, including business 
name, address, phone number, and e-mail 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
106
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.
§ 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; 
(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 website;
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
107
(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 
sections 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.
§ 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; 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
108
(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.
§ 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 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 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
109
statements of fact are true and an accurate statement of the business activities conducted pursuant to the 
NDBEDP by the above-named certified program.
§ 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, e-mail, 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 e-mail. 
(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). 
(c) Formal complaints.  Formal complaints against an NDBEDP certified program may be filed in the 
form and in the manner prescribed under §§ 1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter.  Commission staff may 
grant waivers of, or exceptions to, particular requirements under §§ 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 §§ 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
110
§ 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 websites, and in other 
appropriate publications.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
111
APPENDIX E
Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
1. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
1
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.”
2
  The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small 
business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
3
  In addition, the term “small 
business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
4
  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).
5
  
2. In this Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to further implement the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), which requires the 
Commission to take various measures to increase the access of people with disabilities to modern 
communications.
6
  Pursuant to Section 105 of the CVAA, in 2011, the Commission established the 
National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) as a pilot program.
7
  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.
8
  
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.”
9
  The Commission also selected the Perkins 
School for the Blind as the national outreach coordinator to support the outreach and distribution efforts 
                                                     
1
5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.  The RFA has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. 
L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA).  Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
3
Id. at § 601(6).
4
Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, 
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public 
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 
publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  
5
15 U.S.C. § 632.
6
Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010); Pub. L. No. 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010) (making technical 
corrections to the CVAA).  Section 105 of the CVAA adds Section 719 to the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 620. 
7
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, 26 FCC Rcd 5640 (2011) (NDBEDP Pilot 
Program Order); see also 47 CFR § 64.610 (NDBEDP pilot program rules).  
8
See 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).
9
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5647, para. 13 & n.44.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
112
of these state programs.
10
  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.
11
In this Report and Order, the Commission 
adopts rules to continue the NDBEDP as an ongoing, permanent program.  
3. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding, the Commission 
concluded that the rules proposed in the NPRM 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.
12
  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.
13
  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.
14
  The Commission 
therefore certified, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposals in the NPRM, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
15
4. Currently, 53 entities are certified to distribute equipment under the pilot program – one 
entity for each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  The Report and 
Order extends the NDBEDP to include the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 
Mariana Islands because residents of these territories are also eligible for services supported by the TRS 
Fund.  As a result, up to 56 entities may be certified to participate in the permanent NDBEDP.
5. The Report and Order 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.
6. State programs are reimbursed for the costs of the equipment they distribute under the 
NDBEDP and for the reasonable costs of providing related services, including providing individualized 
consumer training on how to use NDBEDP-distributed equipment.
16
  In the NDBEDP Pilot Program 
Order, the Commission concluded that, without such training, equipment recipients would not be able to 
use the equipment, such as refreshable Braille displays, and the equipment will be underutilized or 
abandoned.
17
  To help address a persistent shortage of qualified trainers, the Report and Order 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 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.
                                                     
10
Perkins School for the Blind to Conduct National Outreach for the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution 
Program, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6143 (CGB 2012).
11
Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, 
Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6149 (2016).
12
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, 30 FCC Rcd 5255, 5346, Appendix G at 
para. 14 (2015).
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
47 CFR § 64.610(f)(2)(iii); NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670-71, para. 69.  
17
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5670, para. 69.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
113
7. The Report and Order requires that each certified program make public on its website, if 
one is maintained by the certified program, or as part of its other local outreach efforts a brief summary or 
narrative description of any criteria or priorities that apply to its distribution of equipment and provision 
of relates services, and any strategies it uses to ensure the fair distribution of equipment to low-income 
residents who are deaf-blind.  The Report and Order finds that this requirement would increase program 
transparency and benefit program applicants and equipment recipients.  
8. The NDBEDP pilot program rules require all certified programs to submit reports about 
their NDBEDP activities to the Commission every six months.
18
  The Report and Order 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, the Report and Order 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. 
9. In the Report and Order, 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.
19
  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. 
10. 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.
20
  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.
21
  The Commission 
defined administrative costs to include reporting requirements, accounting, regular audits, oversight, and 
                                                     
18
47 CFR § 64.610(g) (pilot program rule).
19
The Report and Order also directs the Bureau, in coordination with the appropriate Commission offices, 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, and authorizes the Bureau 
to allocate an amount necessary for the development and maintenance of the centralized database from the $10 
million available annually from the TRS Fund for the NDBEDP.
20
47 CFR § 64.610(h); see also, e.g., Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Announces 2015-2016 
Allocations for the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 6369 (CGB 
2015).  In the Report and Order, the Commission continues to permit the Bureau to reallocate funds between 
certified programs during the Fund year when individual program performance indicates that NDBEDP funds could 
be more fully utilized by other certified programs.  To date, this reallocation process has served to satisfy requests 
from certified programs for additional funding when demand for equipment and related services has exceeded their 
initial annual funding allocations.
21
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5680, para. 92.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
114
general administration.
22
  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.
23
  
The Report and Order 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.  The Report and Order 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, the Report and Order 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.  
11. 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.
24
  The Bureau selected 
the Perkins School for the Blind to be the national outreach coordinator.
25
  As the Commission explained 
in the NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, significant initial funding for outreach was necessary to inform 
eligible individuals about the availability of the program so that distribution of equipment could take 
place.
26
  Given the significant progress in publicizing the NDBEDP during the pilot program, the Report 
and Order continues to fund the 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.
27
12. 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.
28
  The Report and 
Order continues those audit requirements and also requires each certified program to submit a copy of its 
annual audit to the NDBEDP Administrator.  
13. The Commission finds that the rules adopted in the Report and Order 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 the Report and Order 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 
                                                     
22
Id.
23
47 CFR § 64.610(f)(vi).  
24
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5676, para. 80.  
25
Perkins School for the Blind to Conduct National Outreach for the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution 
Program, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6143 (CGB 2012).
26
NDBEDP Pilot Program Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5675, para. 79
27
The Report and Order allows the Perkins School for the Blind to continue conducting national outreach activities 
for the first five years of the permanent NDBEDP and directs the Bureau, as part of its assessment, to determine 
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
28
47 CFR § 64.610(e)(1)(vii).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
115
economic impact on small entities as a result of the rules adopted in the Report and Order, we believe the 
impact to be a positive one.  
14. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the rules adopted in the 
Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  
15. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including a copy of this final 
certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
29
  In addition, a summary of the Report and 
Order and this final certification will be published in the Federal Register.  
                                                     
29
See 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
116
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN THOMAS E. WHEELER
Re: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210.
For individuals who are deaf-blind, our changing communications environment poses both new 
challenges and new opportunities.  As more and more information is delivered visually and aurally by our 
computers, phones, and electronic devices, making communications accessible to those who are deaf-
blind requires innovative solutions.  For individuals who are deaf-blind, the technology needed to make 
this happen can be very expensive.
To address this challenge – and carry out a mandate of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) – the Commission established the National Deaf-
Blind Equipment Distribution Program.  
Launched on a pilot basis in July 2012, this program – also known as “iCanConnect” – has 
empowered more than 3,000 low-income individuals who have both limited sight and hearing, helping to 
ease their sense of isolation and open up the world in new ways. 
People like Roger Cicchese who, through iCanConnect, obtained a portable device called a 
Braille Sense U2 that allows access to a computer via a braille display.  The equipment enabled Roger to 
take a job in New Hampshire where he narrates from scripts that he reads in braille.  With this device, 
Roger also is able to exchange e-mails with his loved ones and has been empowered to pursue his dream 
of becoming a writer.
People like Ava Bullis, a 10-year-old who is profoundly deaf and has a progressive vision loss, 
who can now communicate with her teachers and classmates and socialize with family and friends.  As to 
the value of iCanConnect, Ava says:  "It provides you with things you need.  It makes me feel like 
everybody else."
People like Burgon Jensen, who became deaf-blind at birth, but now has the independence she 
needs to attend college.  Now a full-time college student at the University of Utah, Burgon said, “There’s 
no way I could be successful in college the way I am now without [this] equipment.”
No deaf-blind American should be denied access to this life-altering technology because they 
can’t afford it.  That’s why it’s so important that we make this highly successful initiative a permanent 
program.
The new iCanConnect will continue to provide up to $10 million a year, but adds three new 
territories, so that now 56 state- and territory-based programs can distribute a wide range of equipment 
enabling low-income individuals who are deaf-blind to access telecommunications, advanced 
communications, and the Internet. 
In addition, the iCanConnect programs in each state will verify applicant eligibility; conduct 
communications technology assessments to determine which equipment will meet the individual’s needs; 
install the equipment where necessary; and provide individualized training on how to use the equipment.   
Some funds under this program also will be made available to address a persistent shortage of qualified 
trainers who can teach people who are deaf-blind how to use the equipment they receive.
To enhance accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness, the permanent program incorporates 
performance goals and measures and directs the creation of a centralized database, which must be used by 
certified programs to submit reports to the Commission.  The database can also be used by programs to 
generate reimbursement claims.  In addition, entities seeking certification to participate in this program 
will be required to have administrative and financial management experience.  Finally, the permanent 
iCanConnect program will have informal complaint procedures for consumers.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
117
Adopting iCanConnect as a permanent program will ensure that, for years to come, we at the 
Commission will be doing our part to help individuals who are deaf-blind break down communications 
barriers and lead more independent lives through access to 21
st
century communications.    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
118
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210.
In 2007, actor and producer James Paul co-directed a documentary called Through Your Eyes, the 
story of Sophie, Emma, and Zoe Dunn, the nation’s only known deaf-blind triplets who lived in Silver, 
Texas. If you have never heard of Silver, it is an unincorporated community 255 miles west of Austin.  
After spending time with the then-six-year-old girls, he found the three to be intelligent but isolated.  
“They just need a way to communicate with the world,” Paul said back then.
While I am pleased to say that technologies exist to help the Dunn triplets, they can be, and most 
often are, cost prohibitive.  For example, a deaf-blind individual who is not able to fully use a computer, 
tablet, or smartphone, without a refreshable braille display, will encounter costs that can run as high as 
$5,000 per unit.  Imagine trying to afford one of those devices on even a middle-class budget.  Imagine 
being the Dunn family and having to multiply that by three.  Then, imagine trying to learn how to use 
these devices without being able to hear and see.
Though estimates range from 45,000 to 700,000 of the number of Americans who are deaf-blind 
– a relatively small number in a nation of some 320 million people – Congress wisely chartered, and the 
FCC brought to life, the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, more colloquially known 
as iCanConnect.  This program brings life-changing communications technologies to those who struggle 
the most when it comes to interacting with rest of the world. 
For a number of years, we have judiciously piloted this program and it has paid multiple 
dividends. The lives of many low-income deaf-blind individuals have been greatly improved, and now it 
is time to make this extremely successful program permanent. 
On my #ConnectingCommunities tour, I had the privilege of visiting one of the participants in the 
iCanConnect pilot, the Perkins School for the Blind.  There I visited a class taught by Kate Crohan, who 
on that day was helping students learn how to use this technology.  Logan, a student in the class, told me 
how he used his braille notetaker not only for school, but to email friends—basic tasks most of us take 
completely for granted. Tasks that are opening doors for him, and will do the same for thousands more.
iCanConnect is a shining example of how good legislation and sound regulatory policies are 
bridging gaps, connecting communities and improving lives.  The program and this Order have my full 
support.  
This Order is a reflection of the things we have learned over the years as well as the hard work by 
FCC staff and others across the country, who are helping ensure that deaf-blind individuals have the 
means and ability to connect and communicate just like everyone else.  We adopt a permanent framework 
that carefully balances the need for flexibility and accountability, which ensures that those precious 
dollars are not only well-spent but that unnecessary administrative burdens are minimized.  As with the 
pilot, the permanent program supports evaluations, training, and equipment for deaf-blind individuals.  
And, in order to increase program efficiency as more people participate in iCanConnect, we initiate a
process to create a database that will serve as a clearinghouse for reporting and reimbursement claims. 
I would like to once again thank the dedicated staff of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau for their tireless work.  You continue to make the lives of individuals with disabilities less 
isolating and you continue to ensure that their world is a more connected one.  Your dedication is 
reflected in this item, and for that and more, we are all grateful.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
119
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210.
Last week we celebrated the twenty-sixth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  
This landmark civil rights legislation pried open the doors of opportunity for more than 56 million 
Americans, making it more possible for them to participate in civic and commercial life free from 
discrimination.  Nearly six years ago, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 
Act was signed into law—bringing these same values into the digital age.  
Pursuant to this law, four years ago, we launched the National Deaf-Blind Equipment 
Distribution pilot program to assist individuals who are deaf-blind with access to telephone and Internet 
services.  Today, we make adjustments to this program to improve it—and we make it permanent.  
This bodes well for the future of accessibility.  Already in the short time that this program has 
been in place over three thousand people have been able to benefit from its support and lead lives that are 
more productive, more connected, and more independent.  The stories from those who have used this 
program are downright inspiring. We have heard how a grandmother in Alabama has used this program 
to stay in touch with her nine grandchildren.  We have heard how a 10-year-old girl in New Jersey has 
used this program to communicate with her teacher and classmates in ways that were never possible 
before.  We have heard how a father in Arizona has trained for a new career as a rehabilitation counselor 
after decades of working as a tour boat pilot and repairman—a job he had to give up due to his hearing 
and vision loss.  
This is powerful stuff.  But there is more good to do, more doors to pry open, and more 
opportunity we can offer though this program.  Thank you to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau and Disability Rights Office for putting in the work to make this possible.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
120
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket 10-210.
Like many ten-year-olds, Ava enjoys dancing, playing basketball, and chatting with friends.  But 
unlike most kids her age, Ava has profound deafness and limited vision as a result of Usher Syndrome.  
Through iCanConnect (formally, the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program), Ava can 
now hear her iPad thanks to an audio cable that plugs into her cochlear implants.  She now knows when 
someone calls thanks to a signaler that vibrates when the home phone rings.  As Ava put it, this 
equipment “makes me feel like everybody else.”
1
Ava isn’t alone.  Two years ago, 13-year-old Nolan received an iPad and an iPhone with 
specialized communication software.  As a result of being born with CHARGE, a genetic condition that 
causes complex birth defects, Nolan has colobomas—basically, gaps in the structure of his eyes—and his 
speech can be difficult to understand.  Nolan’s mother described the technology he now uses as a “game 
changer.”  He regularly talks with family and friends online.
2
Or consider Jose.  When he was 46, Jose lost his sight and suffered debilitating hearing loss after 
a drunk driver crashed into him.  Six years later, he relies on specialized equipment and software from 
iCanConnect to communicate with others and care for himself.  He has said that “[m]y life has been 
brought back to almost like it was before. [iCanConnect] gave me the will to go out and do things,” 
including returning to school to complete his GED.
3
As these stories illustrate, iCanConnect is an important program that can change lives.  Indeed, 
the pilot program has already helped 3,731 deaf-blind individuals.  That’s why I am glad we’re making it 
permanent.  We are largely keeping the pilot program intact to build off its past successes, a decision I 
support.  And we are making a few refinements to smooth future administration.
I want to thank the Disability Rights Office and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
for working tirelessly to implement this essential program.  And I look forward to working with you to 
reform our other programs so that the promise of functionally equivalent communications for all 
Americans can be soon realized.
                                                     
1
iCanConnect, Ten-year-old with Usher Syndrome Connects with Friends and Family Through iCanConnect, 
http://bit.ly/1RnFi5g (Mar. 16, 2016).
2
iCanConnect, Michigan Teen Stays in Touch with Friends Around the Country Through iCanConnect, 
http://bit.ly/1PoXtLC (Nov. 30, 2015).
3
iCanConnect, Georgia Man Regains Communication, Pursues Dreams with iCanConnect, http://bit.ly/2aQhwmh 
(June 25, 2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
121
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL P. O’RIELLY
APPROVING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART
Re: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of
2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210.
The item before us helps fulfill our statutory obligation under the CVAA.  Equally important is 
that the resulting new permanent program will continue our efforts to bring communications technology 
to those Americans who are deaf-blind.  
It is nearly impossible to read the text of the Report and Order and not think of the daily 
challenges these individuals can face in our supersonic-paced society.  Our everyday errands and normal 
routines, in some instances, can become monumental tasks for deaf-blind individuals.  Thankfully, we 
have the unique opportunity to dramatically improve their ability to communicate with and learn from the 
amazing world outside, opening the door to new possibilities.  A glorious feature of modern technology is 
that it expands the universe of contributions that all people can make to society.    
That is not to suggest that I don’t have difficulties with certain directions and decisions contained 
within the item.  While it is refreshing to see the Commission move away from the pilot project approach, 
which was statutorily defunct, and to a permanent program as required by law, we had the chance to 
install necessary safeguards and improvements to the program’s functionality and reach but, in some 
cases, chose not to make them.  
I am pleased that some of the suggestions I had made at the Notice stage on oversight and 
accountability have made it in to the final rules.  These include establishing performance goals and 
measures, requiring that the state programs have administrative and financial management experience, 
and adding consumer attestations for compliance with Commission rules.  They stem from the 
Commission’s experience with the federal universal service programs, as well as recommendations from 
the U.S. Government Accountability Office.  
However, the biggest disappointment with the current text has to be the diversion of funds to non-
equipment functions.  These are things that aren’t contemplated by the statute, despite the weak 
arguments made to the contrary, and such activities take valuable funds away from the core purpose of the 
program.  These would fund things such as training the trainers, out of state travel expenses, and high 
administrative costs.  We are also going to pay for program outreach and awareness, admittedly less than 
before, but the program is already at 90 percent of overall budget.  When you add up all of these other 
costs, somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the total program funding will not be going to deaf-blind 
equipment, our central statutory purpose.  
At the same time, management of the program, especially given the heavy delegation contained 
within, means that a combination of state program administrators and staff in the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau will be making all of the future programmatic decisions.  We are 
effectively putting the program in their hands and hoping for the best, as the Commissioners will have 
little role except if or when problems develop.  This approach hasn’t worked for other Commission 
subsidy programs, like E-Rate and Lifeline, and applying it here despite our experiences with those 
programs is more than troubling.  I certainly have to hope this will be the rare exception to the bumbling 
that has occurred elsewhere.  
In addition, I asked that the program install a mechanism to deal with the issue of 
oversubscription, to the extent it occurs in the future.  Since the program is already at 90 percent of 
budget, this isn’t some impossible or far flung possibility.  Moreover, the Commission was able to do it 
for the Rural Health Care Program.  Let’s face it, if we wait until the budget is exhausted, we are likely to 
make worse decisions scrambling around than if we install a default process now.  Sadly, this approach 
did not make the cut.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-101
122
The Commission also rejected my simple request to install a natural sunset to the program in 
order to force the Commission to reevaluate the program – not necessarily end it – in ten years.  Such a 
simple mechanism could have gone a long way towards forcing the proper examination, by the full 
Commission, of any existing problems.    
Despite the areas where my thoughts of bringing greater accountability and focus were rejected, 
the overall effort is generally reasonable.  My hope is that the new program helps fulfill the 
communications needs of those deaf-blind individuals, who clearly have more spirit, more perseverance, 
more focus, more grace and more determination than I can ever hope to attain in life.  I approve in part 
and concur in part.