Parties Back FCC Deaf-Blind Equipment Program, Argue Over Specifics
The FCC's proposal to make a deaf-blind communications equipment program permanent and craft rules received much support from commenters, with some areas of dispute, in docket 10-210. There was near unanimity for keeping the current administrative structure, under which the FCC authorizes one entity in each state to oversee the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (also called “iCanConnect") in that state. There was general support for establishing a central database to help states with reporting and reimbursement duties, but a number of state entities voiced wariness unless their concerns are addressed. There were differences over the proper income threshold approach for determining the eligibility of deaf-blind people, and over an FCC proposal to fund “training for trainers.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The FCC on May 21 approved an order extending its current iCanConnect pilot program for another year through June 2016 and an NPRM that proposed to make the $10 million per year program permanent and write administrative and operational rules (see 1505210056). The FCC proposed to establish goals and measures to ensure the program effectively helps deaf-blind people gain access to specialized communications devices, is administered efficiently and is cost effective. Where there is tension in the goals, the FCC sought comment on how best to prioritize or balance the goals. Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said the agency sought comment on "how to prioritize funding within the cap, with an eye towards maximizing equipment to low-income individuals." He had "deep concern" about proposals to use funding for other services, such as expanded travel reimbursement and train-the-trainer programs.
Virtually all commenters supported keeping the current administrative structure, under which the FCC certifies entities in each of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to run the program in that jurisdiction. The International DeafBlind Institution said it preferred to move to a national administrator, but it recognized the transition from the existing state entities would be problematic. State groups opposed an FCC proposal to require them to reapply for their certifications in a permanent iCanConnect program, but agreed with its suggested alternative to require them to show how they would satisfy any new certification criteria. Commenters supported FCC proposals for requiring certified state entities to give at least 90 days notice if they decide to relinquish their positions.
But certified state entities expressed concern about the process for finding replacement entities. Many state groups said one group, the Perkins School for the Blind, which is partnering in the program in various states, often heard about openings before others and had an advantage in helping submit applications for certification on short notice. The state groups urged the FCC to ensure fair notification and give preference to in-state entities, but Perkins said the FCC shouldn't limit qualified out-of-state entities from partnering and contributing their skills. “The state partner model encourages and facilitates local collaborations between agencies and other service providers,” Perkins said. “Allowing entities to be certified in more than one state program provides consistent management and economies of scale that can facilitate group buys on equipment and outreach.”
Noting that 10 of 53 certified state entities had relinquished their positions, the FCC proposed creating a central database to help the state administrators in their reporting and reimbursement duties. There was much support for the concept, but some state entities had concerns, including that the Perkins database, which has been used by many states, is still too cumbersome despite being modified. They said it shouldn't be used as the central database. Perkins said it “commissioned the development of the database to meet Perkins’ needs to administer the program in multiple states. We have worked with our database vendor to continue to refine the development based on experience with the program and end-user feedback.”
There was division over the FCC’s household-based income threshold for determining the program eligibility of individuals. The pilot program defined low-income individuals as having an income that doesn't exceed 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, factoring in the number of people living in a household. Some commenters supported it, but others, including state groups, backed moving to an approach based on the personal income of the individuals. State groups also urged the FCC to shift national marketing outreach and proposed training-for-trainers funding and efforts to the state level.