Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Request for Review of the )
Decision of the )
Universal Service Administrator by )
)
Bishop Perry Middle School ) File Nos. SLD-487170, et al.
New Orleans, LA, et al. )
)
Schools and Libraries Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 02-6
Support Mechanism )
ORDER
Adopted: May 2, 2006 Released: May 19, 2006
By the Commission: Commissioner Copps issuing a separate statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we grant 196 appeals of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC) concerning the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (also known
as the E-rate program) denying funding due to certain clerical or ministerial errors in the application, i.e.,
a failure to timely file an FCC Form 471, a failure to timely file a certification related to an FCC Form
470, or a failure to comply with minimum processing standards.
1
As explained below, we find that
special circumstances exist to justify a waiver of the Commission’s rules, and, accordingly, we grant these
appeals and remand the underlying applications associated with these appeals to USAC for further action
consistent with this Order. To ensure that the underlying applications are resolved expeditiously, we
direct USAC to complete its review of each application listed in the Appendices, and issue an award or a
denial based on a complete review and analysis, no later than 60 days from release of this Order. In
addition, we direct USAC to provide all future and pending applicants with a 15-day opportunity to cure
any ministerial or clerical errors on their FCC Form 470, FCC Form 471, or associated certifications. We
also direct USAC to develop targeted outreach procedures designed to better inform applicants of
application procedures.
2. As we recently noted, many E-rate program beneficiaries, particularly small entities,
contend that the application process is complicated, resulting in a significant number of applications for
E-rate support being denied for ministerial, clerical or procedural errors.
2
We find that the actions we
1
In this Order, we use the term “appeals” to generically refer to requests for review of decisions, or waivers related
to such decisions, issued by the Commission, the Wireline Competition Bureau, or the Administrator. A list of these
pleadings is attached as Appendices A-C. One of the appeals is a petition for reconsideration of a Commission order
filed by the Information Technology Department of the State of North Dakota.
2
Comprehensive Review of Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight, Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, Rural Health Care
Support Mechanism, Lifeline and Linkup, Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
2
take here to provide relief from these types of errors in the application process will promote the statutory
requirements of section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), by helping to
ensure that eligible schools and libraries actually obtain access to discounted telecommunications and
information services.
3
In particular, we believe that by directing USAC to modify certain application
processing procedures and granting a limited waiver of our application filing rules, we will provide for a
more effective application processing system that will ensure eligible schools and libraries will be able to
realize the intended benefits of the E-rate program as we consider additional steps to reform and improve
the E-rate program.
4
Requiring USAC to take these additional steps will not reduce or eliminate any
application review procedures or lessen the program requirements that applicants must comply with to
receive funding. Indeed, we retain our commitment to detecting and deterring potential instances of
waste, fraud, and abuse by ensuring that USAC continues to scrutinize applications and takes steps to
educate applicants in a manner that fosters program participation. We also emphasize that our actions
taken in this Order should have minimal effect on the overall federal Universal Service Fund (USF or the
Fund), because the monies needed to fund these appeals have already been collected and held in reserve.
5
II. BACKGROUND
3. Under the E-rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible
schools and libraries may apply for discounts for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access,
and internal connections. The E-rate application process generally begins with a technology assessment
and a technology plan.
6
After developing the technology plan, the applicant must file the FCC Form 470
(FCC Form 470) to request discounted services such as tariffed telecommunications services, month-to-
month Internet access, cellular services, or paging services, and any services for which the applicant is
seeking a new contract.
7
The FCC Form 470 must be posted on USAC’s schools and libraries division
website for at least 28 days.
8
The applicant must then comply with the Commission’s competitive
Association, Inc., WC Docket Nos. 05-195, 02-60, 03-109, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 02-6, 97-21, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11308 (2005) (Comprehensive Review
NPRM).
3
47 U.S.C. § 254(h). The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, amended the
Communications Act of 1934.
4
Comprehensive Review NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 11324-25, paras. 37-40 (seeking comment on the application
process and competitive bidding requirements for the schools and libraries program).
5
We estimate that the appeals granted in this Order involve applications for approximately $68 million in funding
for Funding Years 1999-2005. We note that USAC has already reserved approximately $585 million to fund
outstanding appeals. See, e.g., Universal Service Administrative Company, Federal Universal Service Support
Mechanisms Fund Size Projections for the Fourth Quarter 2005, dated August 2, 2005. Thus, we determine that the
action we take today should have minimal effect on the USF as a whole.
6
47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 54.504. Applicants seeking discounts only for telecommunications services
do not need to develop a technology plan. See Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service
Administrator by United Talmudical Academy, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the
Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21, Order, 16 FCC
Rcd 18812, 18816, para. 11 (2001). In August, 2004, the Commission revised its rules concerning technology plans.
See Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15826-30, paras. 51-63. See Schools and
Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15808, 15826-
30, paras. 51-63 (2004) (Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order).
7
If the technology plan has not been approved when the applicant files the Form 470, the applicant must certify that
it understands that the technology plan must be approved prior to commencement of service. 47 C.F.R. §
54.504(b)(2)(vii).
8
47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
3
bidding requirements set forth in sections 54.504 and 54.511(a) of the Commission’s rules.
9
The
applicant then files the FCC Form 471 (FCC Form 471), after entering into agreements for eligible
services.
10
Section 54.507 of the Commission’s rules states that fund discounts will be available on a
first-come-first-served basis.
11
Under the Commission’s rules, USAC implements an initial filing period,
or filing window, for the FCC Form 471 applications that treats all schools and libraries filings within that
period as if their applications were simultaneously received.
12
4. The Commission has vested in USAC the responsibility of administering the application
process for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism.
13
Pursuant to this authority,
USAC has established procedures, including “minimum processing standards,” to facilitate its efficient
review of the thousands of applications requesting funding that it receives.
14
These minimum processing
standards are designed to require an applicant to provide at least the minimum data necessary for USAC
to initiate review of the application under statutory requirements and Commission rules. When an
applicant submits an FCC Form 470 or FCC Form 471 application that omits information required by the
minimum processing standards, USAC automatically returns the application to the applicant without
considering it for discounts under the program, without inquiring into the cause of the omission or
without providing the applicant with the opportunity to cure the error.
15
For example, if an applicant
failed to answer all blocks 1-6 on the FCC Form 471 or failed to submit a properly signed signature
certification, the applicant’s FCC Form 471 would be rejected and returned to the applicant, without
further consideration.
16
5. The Commission has under consideration various appeals filed by parties that have
requested funding for discounted services under the schools and libraries universal service support
mechanism.
17
The petitioners request review of decisions, or waivers related to such decisions, issued by
9
47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504, 54.511(a).
10
This form is to request discounts on those services and it contains the discount calculation worksheet and the
discount funding request. The FCC Form 471 must be filed each time a school or library orders telecommunications
services, Internet access, or internal connections.
11
47 C.F.R. §§ 54.507(c).
12
47 C.F.R. §§ 54.507(c).
13
Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board
on Universal Service, CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 97-21 and
Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 97-21 and Eighth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No.
96-45, 13 FCC Rcd 25058 (1998).
14
See, e.g., Instructions for Completing the Universal Service Schools and Libraries Services Ordered and
Certification Form (FCC Form 471), OMB 3060-0806 (December 2002) (FCC Form 471 Instructions) at 6-9.
15
See, e.g., USAC website, Form 471 Minimum Processing Standards and Filing Requirements for FY 4,
http:// www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/471mps.asp
(Minimum Processing Standards).
16
Id. But note, in the Naperville Order, the Commission determined that USAC should not return an application
without consideration for having omitted information required by USAC’s minimum processing standards where:
(1) the request for information is a first-time information requirement on a revised form, thereby possibly leading to
confusion on the part of the applicants; (2) the omitted information could be easily discerned by USAC through
examination of other information included in the application; and (3) the application is otherwise substantially
complete. Request for Review by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service, Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., File No.
SLD-203343, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5032,5037-38, paras. 12-15 (2001) (Naperville
Order).
17
See Appendices A-C.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
4
the Commission, the Wireline Competition Bureau, or USAC.
18
The decisions at issue involve the denial
of funding based on an applicant’s failure to timely file an FCC Form 471, a failure to timely file
certifications related to an FCC Form 470, or a failure to comply with minimum processing standards.
19
6. The Commission may waive any provision of its rules on its own motion and for good
cause shown.
20
A rule may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with
the public interest.
21
In addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship,
equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis.
22
In sum, waiver is
appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would
better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule.
23
III. DISCUSSION
7. In this item, we consider 196 appeals of decisions denying requests for funding from the
schools and libraries universal service support mechanism based on an applicant’s failure to timely file an
FCC Form 471, a failure to timely file the certifications related to an FCC Form 470, or a failure to
comply with minimum processing standards. We consider these three groups of applicants separately
below.
8. Generally, the petitioners argue that immaterial clerical, ministerial or procedural errors
resulted in rejection of their requests. Some also dispute that an error was made at all. For the reasons
discussed below, we waive the relevant Commission rules, and grant all pending appeals pertaining to
decisions denying funding due to a failure to comply with minimum processing standards, a failure to
timely file an FCC Form 471, or a failure to timely file certifications related to an FCC Form 470, and
remand the underlying applications associated with these appeals to USAC for further action consistent
with this Order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate
eligibility of the requested services.
9. In many instances here we depart from prior Commission precedent.
24
For the reasons
described below, however, we find that the departure is warranted and in the public interest. Although we
base our decision to grant these requests in part on the fact that many of the rules at issue here are
18
For purposes of this Order, decisions by both the Schools and Libraries Division and USAC will be collectively
referred to as decisions issued by USAC.
19
See Appendices A-C.
20
47 C.F.R. §1.3.
21
Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular).
22
WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157, (D.C. Cir. 1969), affirmed by WAIT Radio v. FCC, 459 F.2d 1203
(D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).
23
Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.
24
See, e.g., Request for Review by St. John’s School, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism,
Order, 20 FCC Rcd 8171 (2005); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board of
Directors of the national Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Bruggemeyer Memorial Library, Order, 14 FCC Rcd
13170 (1999); see also Naperville Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 5036 -5037, para. 11 (Although the Commission granted
Naperville’s request for review, it affirmed that “consistent with the Commission’s rule requiring applicants to
submit a ‘completed’ FCC Form 471, SLD’s minimum processing standards provide an efficient means to minimize
unnecessary administrative costs by reducing the number of substantially incomplete applications that SLD must
review and process,” and concluded that “it is appropriate for SLD to require the information requested by Item
22[in Form 471], and for SLD to return applications that fail to provide this information in any form.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
5
procedural, such a decision is in the context of the purposes of section 254 and cannot be applied
generally to other Commission rules that are procedural in nature. Specifically, section 254 directs the
Commission to “enhance . . . access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all
public and non-profit elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care providers and libraries.”
25
Because applicants who are eligible for funding will now receive the opportunity for that funding where
previously it was denied for minor errors, we believe granting waivers of these rules in these instances,
particularly in light of the limited 15-day correction period we impose, will better ensure that universal
service support is distributed first to the applicants who are determined by our rules to be most in need,
and thus, further the goals of section 254. We caution, however, that even in the context of the schools
and libraries program, the waivers here should not be read to mean that applicants will not be required in
the future to comply fully with our procedural rules, which are vital to the efficient operation of the E-rate
program. To ensure these issues are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its review of
the applications listed in the Appendices and issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and
analysis no later than 60 days from release of this Order.
10. Applications Denied for Failing to Meet the Minimum Processing Standards
. Sixty-three
applicants were denied funding for failing to meet USAC’s minimum processing standards.
26
Some of
these appeals involved clerical errors on the part of petitioners who inadvertently left portions of the FCC
Form 470 or FCC Form 471 blank or made minor errors while completing the form.
27
Some petitioners
25
See 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).
26
See Appendix C. We estimate that these 63 appeals involve applications for approximately $34 million in funding
for Funding Years 1999-2005 and note that these funds have already been collected and held in reserve. Also
covered in this Order is one application that does not technically involve a minimum processing error. Alexander
City Schools discovered it had incorrectly requested a lesser amount of money than it needed. Even though it
promptly notified USAC of its error – within nine days – USAC found that because the correction was made after
the close of the filing window, USAC could not correct the amount of funding. See Request for Review by
Alexander City Schools.
27
Request for Review by Alexander City Schools; Request for Review by Athens City Schools; Request for Review
by Bay St. Louis-Waveland School District; Request for Review of Bucksport School Department; Request for
Review of Calumet City School District No. 155; Request for Review of Clovis Unified School District; Request for
Review and Waiver of Colegio San Antonio; Request for Review of Colton School District #53; Request for Review
of Cooperative Educational Service Agency #12; Request for Review of Creighton School District; Request for
Review of Elsa Public Library; Request for Review of Emery Unified School District; Request for Review of
Fairfax County Public Schools; Request for Review of Forsyth County Public Library; Request for Review of
Franklin Lakes School District; Request for Review of French Camp Academy; Request for Review of Henderson
County Public Library; Request for Review of Hood River County School District; Request for Review of
Incarnation School; Request for Review of Jackson District Library; Request for Review of Lawrence County
School District; Request for Review of Leary Independent School District; Request for Review of Mabton School
District 120; Request for Review of Marshfield Public Schools; Request for Review of Maumee City School
District; Request for Review of McKittrick School District; Request for Review of Memphis City Schools; Request
for Review of Mililani-Mauka Elementary School; Request for Review of Northampton Public Schools; Request for
Waiver of Radford City Schools; Request for Review of Rangeley Public Library; Request for Review of Richards
Independent Schools; Request for Review of Richford High School; Request for Review of Santa Cruz Catholic
School; Request for Review of Sevier County Library; Request for Review of St. Joseph the Carpenter Schools;
Request for Review of St. Lawrence Catholic School; Request for Review of St. Mary’s Academy; Request for
Review of Suffolk Cooperative Library System; Request for Review of Sweetser; Request for Review of Teton
County Library; Request for Review and Waiver of Toledo Academy of Learning; Request for Review of Unger
Memorial Library; Request for Review of Upper Adams School District; Request for Review of Vidalia City School
District; Request for Review of Volusia County Schools; Request for Review of West Genesee Central School
District; Petition for Reconsideration of City of Newport News; Application for Review of Des Moines Public
Schools; Petition for Reconsideration of King and Queen County Public Schools.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
6
experienced technical problems, either with their own equipment or while interfacing with USAC’s
electronic filing mechanism, and failed to properly file electronically.
28
Other petitioners used outdated
USAC forms.
29
Some other petitioners claim that the rules and instructions for filing an FCC Form 470
or FCC Form 471 are vague and unclear and that the resulting misunderstandings led to minor mistakes
on their applications.
30
Finally, others maintain that they did not violate the minimum processing
standards at all.
31
11. Based on the facts and circumstances of these specific cases, we find that good cause
exists to waive the minimum processing standards established by USAC. Minimum processing standards
are necessary to ensure the efficient review of the thousands of applications requesting funding that
USAC receives. In these circumstances, applicants committed minor errors in filling out their application
forms. For example, among other problems, applicants inadvertently forgot to fill in a box, had computer
problems, used an outdated form that requests primarily the same information as the current one, or
misread the instructions. We do not believe that such minor mistakes warrant the complete rejection of
each of these applicants’ E-rate applications, especially given the requirements of the program and the
thousands of applications filed each year.
32
Importantly, applicants’ errors could not have resulted in an
advantage for them in the processing of their application. That is, the applicants’ mistakes, if not caught
by USAC, could not have resulted in the applicant receiving more funding than it was entitled to. In
addition, at this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, misuse of funds, or a failure to adhere
to core program requirements. Furthermore, we find that the denial of funding requests inflicts undue
hardship on the applicants. In these cases, we find that the applicants have demonstrated that rigid
compliance with the application procedures does not further the purposes of section 254(h) or serve the
public interest.
33
We therefore grant these appeals and remand them to USAC for further processing
consistent with this Order.
12. Applications Denied for Filing Outside the FCC Form 471 Filing Window
. We also have
before us for consideration 103 appeals of USAC decisions that denied funding for applications that were
filed outside of the FCC Form 471 filing window.
34
Some petitioners maintain that they submitted the
28
Request for Review of Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake Central School District; Request for Review of West Sioux
Community School District.
29
Request for Review by Perrysburg Exempt Village School; Request for Review by Lawrence County School
District; Request for Review by Maumee City School District; Request for Review of Maine School Administrative
District No. 36; Request for Review of Moencopi Day School.
30
Request for Review of City of Boston; Request for Review of Department of Neighborhood Development;
Request for Review of Tennessee School Boards Association; Application for Review of Paramus School District.
31
Request for Review of Biblioteca Electronica de Rio Hondo; Request for Review of Sarah A. Reed Children’s
Center; Request for Review of South Winneshiek Community School District.
32
The initial application is 14 pages long. See USAC website, Schools and Libraries Universal Service
Description of Services Requested and Certification Form 470, available at
http://www.universalservice.org/_res/documents/sl/pdf/470.pdf
.
33
See 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).
34
See Appendix B. We estimate that these 103 appeals involve applications for approximately $30 million in
funding for Funding Years 1999-2005, and note that these funds have already been collected and held in reserve. In
the case of Fairfax School District R3, Minnesota Transition School, Minnewaska Area Schools, Our Lady of The
Lake School, and St. Francis of Assisi School, the applicants had not yet submitted their completed FCC Forms 471
before filing their requests for review with the Commission but anticipated that their forms would be filed outside
the FCC Form 471 filing window. See Request for Review of Fairfax School District R3; Request for Waiver of
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
7
relevant information on time.
35
Given that it is difficult to determine in these cases whether the error was
the fault of the applicant, USAC or a third party, we give the applicants the benefit of the doubt. We find
that a slight delay in USAC’s receipt of the applications in each of these cases does not warrant the
complete rejection of each of these applicants’ E-rate applications. Therefore, we find that good cause
exists to waive section 54.507 of the rules for these applications.
36
13. The rest of the petitioners assert a waiver is appropriate for one of two reasons: either
someone on the applicants’ staff made a mistake or had a family emergency that prevented them from
filing on time or the delay in the filing or receipt of the application was due to circumstances out of the
applicants’ control. Specifically, in the first group, some of these appeals involve applicants whose staff
members inadvertently failed to file the application forms in a timely manner.
37
Another group of
petitioners state that they were unable to comply with the filing deadline due to staff illness or relatives of
staff members who were ill.
38
Other petitioners claim that the rules and instructions for filing an FCC
Minnesota Transition School; Request for Waiver of Minnewaska Area Schools; Request for Waiver of Our Lady
of The Lake School; Request for Waiver of St. Francis of Assisi School.
35
Request for Review of Centerville School District 60-1; Request for Appeal of Colonial Intermediate Unit 20;
Request for Review of Derby Public Schools; Request for Review of Ferndale Area School District; Request for
Review of Kent City Schools; Request for Review of Mel Blount Youth Home; Request for Review of North Panola
School District; Request for Review of Oglala Lakota Technology Consortium; Request for Review and Waiver of
Perrysburg Exempt Village School District.
36
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(c).
37
Request for Waiver of Assabet Valley Regional Vocational School District; Request for Review of Barnwell
County School District 45; Request for Review of Bath County School District; Request Waiver of Beavertown
Community Library; Request for Review of Brown County School Corporation; Request for Review of Caruthers
Unified School District; Request for Review of Central Catholic High School; Application for Review of
Chawanakee Joint Elementary School District; Request for Review of Clearwater Memorial Library; Request for
Waiver of Clinton County Board of Education; Request for Review of Coahoma County Public Schools; Requests
for Review of Consorcio de Escuelas y Bibliotecas; Request for Review and Waiver of CPC Behavioral Healthcare;
Request for Review of Delta County School District; Request for Review of Fairfax School District R3; Request for
Review of Germantown School District; Request for Waiver of Hawaii State Public Library; Petitioner for
Reconsideration of High Bridge Board of Education; Request for Waiver of Holmes District School Board; Request
for Review of Hubbard Independent School District; Request for Waiver of Indian Oasis Baboquivari District 40;
Request for Waiver of Island Trees Public Library; Request for Waiver of Jefferson School District; Request for
Review of Los Alamitos Unified School District; Request for Review of Madera Unified School District; Request
for Review of Malone Independent School District; Request for Waiver of McClure Community Library; Request
for Waiver of Middleburg Community Library; Request for Waiver of Minnesota Transition School; Request for
Waiver of Minnewaska Area Schools; Request for Review of Montfort & Allie B. Jones Memorial Library; Request
for Waiver of Mount Ayr Community School District; Request for Waiver of Mount Saint John School; Request for
Waiver of Mt. Carroll Township Public Library; Request for Review of Our Lady of Refuge; Request for Waiver of
Pinon Dormitory; Request for Waiver of Queen of Apostles Catholic School; Request for Waiver of Richmond
Public Library; Request for Review of Rylander Memorial School; Request for Waiver of Selinsgrove Community
Library; Petitioner for Reconsideration of Siskiyou County Library; Request for Review of Southeast Delco School
District; Request for Review of Southeastern Libraries Cooperating; Request for Review of St. Clement’s Regional
Catholic School; Request for Review of St. Elizabeth Interparochial School; Request for Waiver of St. Francis of
Assisi School; Request for Waiver of SuperNet Consortium; Request for Waiver of Tiverton School Department;
Request for Waiver Wabash Valley Educational Center; Request for Review of Wallington Public Schools; Request
for Waiver of Walnut Community School District; Request for Waiver of Washington Local School District;
Request for Waiver of Westside Holistic Family Services; Request for Review of Whitfield County School District;
Request for Waiver of Wilkinson County School District; Request for Review of Wilson Memorial Library.
38
Request for Waiver of Augusta County Library; Request for Review of Bonnie Brae Educational Center School;
Request for Review of Garvey School District; Request for Waiver of Gaston County School District; Request for
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
8
Form 471 are vague and unclear and that the resulting misunderstandings led to forms being filed after the
filing window.
39
14. Based on the facts and circumstances of these specific cases, we find that good cause
exists to waive the deadline for filing the FCC Form 471 found in section 54.507 of the Commission’s
rules.
40
Under Bureau precedent deadlines have been strictly enforced for the E-rate program,
41
including
those pertaining to the FCC Form 471. We nevertheless find that good cause exists to waive the deadline
in these cases. Generally, these applicants claim that staff mistakes or confusion resulted in the late filing
of their FCC Form 471s. We note that the primary jobs of most of the people filling out these forms
include school administrators, technology coordinators and teachers, as opposed to positions dedicated to
pursuing federal grants, especially in small school districts. Even when a school official has learned how
to correctly navigate the application process, unexpected illnesses or other family emergencies can result
in the only official who knows the process being unavailable to complete the application on time. Given
that the violation at issue is procedural, not substantive, we find that the complete rejection of each of
these applications is not warranted. Notably, at this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse,
misuse of funds, or a failure to adhere to core program requirements. Furthermore, we find that denial of
funding in these cases would inflict undue hardship on the applicants. In these cases, the applicants have
demonstrated that rigid compliance with USAC’s application procedures does not further the purposes of
section 254(h) or serve the public interest.
42
We therefore grant these appeals and remand them to USAC
for further processing consistent with this Order.
15. The second group of petitioners failed to file an FCC Form 471 in a timely manner due to
circumstances beyond their control, such as school reorganizations or inclement weather.
43
Some
petitioners state that technical problems, either with their own equipment or while interfacing with
USAC’s electronic filing mechanism, prevented the FCC Form 471s from being timely filed.
44
Other
Waiver Millennium Community School; Request for Waiver of Northwest Institute for Contemporary Learning,
Inc.; Request for Waiver of St. Mary’s School; Petition for Reconsideration of Neches Independent School District;
Request for Waiver of Unadilla Community School.
39
Request for Waiver of Blackwell Public Schools; Request for Waiver of Brooklyn Jesuit Prep; Request for
Review of Cecil County Public Schools; Request for Review of Colleton County School District; Request for
Review of Jefferson City School District; Request for Review of Laporte School District 306; Request for Waiver of
Nativity Mission School; Request for Review of Pierce City School District R6; Request for Waiver of St. Ignatius
Academy.
40
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(c).
41
See, e.g., Request for Review by Information Technology Department State of North Dakota, Federal-State Joint
Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.,
File No. SLD-245592, CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7383, 7389, para. 13 (Wireline Comp.
Bur. 2002) (North Dakota Order); Request for Review by Wilmington Public Schools, Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service, Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., File No.
SLD-254818, CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 12069, 12071, paras. 7-8 (Wireline Comp. Bur.
2002) (Wilmington Public Schools Order); Request for Review by South Barber Unified School District, Federal-
State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
Association, Inc., File No. SLD-158897, CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18435, 18437-38,
para. 7 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001) (South Barber Order).
42
See 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).
43
Request for Waiver of Design and Engineering Services; Request for Waiver of Nelson County Public Schools;
Request for Waiver of Our Lady of the Lake School.
44
Request for Waiver of A.C.E. Charter High School; Request for Review of American School for the Deaf;
Request for Waiver of Associated Marine Institutes, Inc.; Request for Review of Clinton Public Schools; Request
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
9
petitioners claim that they attempted to mail their FCC Form 471s on time but that problems with a third-
party carrier prevented the application from arriving in a timely manner.
45
16. Based on the facts and circumstances of these specific cases, we find that good cause
exists to waive the deadline for filing the FCC Form 471 found in section 54.507(c) of the Commission’s
rules.
46
Under Bureau precedent, deadlines have been strictly enforced for the E-rate program,
47
including
those pertaining to the FCC Form 471. We nevertheless find that good cause exists to waive the deadline
in these cases. Generally, these applicants claim that problems with third parties or circumstances outside
their control resulted in the late filing of their FCC Form 471s. We find that, given that the violation at
issue is procedural, not substantive, a complete rejection of each of these applications is not warranted,
especially given that the error in these cases is not the fault of the applicants. Notably, at this time, there
is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, misuse of funds or a failure to adhere to core program
requirements. Furthermore, we find that denial of funding in these cases would inflict undue hardship on
the applicants. In these cases, the applicants have demonstrated that rigid compliance with USAC’s
application procedures does not further the purposes of section 254(h) or serve the public interest.
48
We
therefore grant these appeals and remand them to USAC for further processing consistent with this Order.
17. Applications Denied for Failing to Certify FCC Form 470
. We also have before us for
consideration 29 appeals of USAC decisions that denied funding for applications because their FCC
Forms 470 were not certified or not certified before the close of the filing window.
49
Some of these
appeals involve applicants whose staff members inadvertently failed to file the certification before the
filing window closed.
50
Some petitioners state that technical problems, either with their own equipment
or while interfacing with USAC’s electronic filing mechanism, prevented the FCC Forms 470 from being
certified.
51
Other petitioners claim that they attempted to mail their FCC Form 470s certifications but that
for Waiver of Howard County School District; Requests for Waiver of Jemez Mountain School District; Request for
Waiver of Leggett Valley Unified School District; Request for Review of Maine School Administrative District #36;
Request for Review of Meriwether County School System; Request for Review of North East Independent School
District; Request for Review of Saint John Grammar School; Request for Review of Trinity Christian School;
Request for Review of Watson School District #56.
45
Request for Waiver of Las Vegas City Schools; Request for Review of Loogootee Community School
Corporation.
46
See 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(c).
47
See, e.g., North Dakota Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7389, para. 13; Wilmington Public Schools Order, 17 FCC Rcd at
12071, paras. 7-8; South Barber Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18437-38, para. 7.
48
See 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).
49
We estimate that these 29 appeals involve applications for approximately $4 million in funding for Funding Years
1999-2005, and note that these funds have already been collected and held in reserve.
50
Request for Waiver of Bishop Perry Middle School; Request for Review of Canby School District 891; Request
for Review of Candler County Board of Education; Request for Review of Cassopolis Public School; Request for
Review of Construction Careers Center; Request for Review of Dunmore School District; Request for Review of
Fluvanna County School District; Request for Review of Interstate 35 Community School District; Request for
Review of Lydia Bruun Woods Memorial Library; Request for Review of Mabton School District 120; Request for
Review of New York State Office of Children & Family Services; Request for Review of Proctor Public Schools;
Request for Review of Weld County School District Six.
51
Request for Review of Fort Atkinson School District; Request for Waiver of Northwestern Local School District;
Request for Review of Tewksbury Public Schools; Request for Review of Unified School District 443 Information
Technologies Services; Request for Review of Weld County School District Re-3(J).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
10
the FCC Form 470 was either lost by a third-party carrier or USAC.
52
Still other petitioners maintain that
they complied with program rules.
53
18. Based on the facts and circumstances of these specific cases, we find that good cause exists
to waive the requirement that the certification be filed with FCC Form 470 for these applicants. Our rules
require that applicants certify that certain eligibility and program requirements are met.
54
Specifically, the
certifications include attestations that applicants have a current technology plan, if applicable; that they
will conduct the competitive bidding process in accordance with Commission rules; that the applicant is
an eligible school or library or consortium; that the funding will be used for educational purposes; that the
applicant has not received anything of value from the service provider, other than the requested services,
in connection with the request for services; that applicants have the necessary resources to use the
services purchased effectively; that the signatory has the authority to submit the request on behalf of the
applicant; that the applicant has complied with applicable federal, state and local procurement laws and
that violations of the rules may result in suspension or debarment from the program.
55
These
certifications on the FCC Form 470 are important to maintain the integrity of the E-rate program and are
necessary to ensure that only eligible entities receive support under the program.
19. We find, however, that a missing certification does not constitute a substantive violation,
but a procedural one. We emphasize that these applicants still must file the certifications, even though
they are late, for their applications to be processed by USAC. The question here is one of timing. USAC
denied these applications not because the applicants refused to sign the certification, but because it was
not received by USAC by the filing deadline, which meant that the applications were incomplete. Many
of the applicants thought they had complied with the requirements, but due to computer error or other
third-party errors, the certifications did not reach USAC.
20. While the Bureau has enforced existing filing deadlines for the E-rate program,
56
we find
that good cause exists to waive the procedural deadline in these cases. We find that given that the
violation at issue is procedural, not substantive, we find that a complete rejection of each of these
applications is not warranted, especially given that the error in these cases is not the fault of the
applicants. Notably, at this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, misuse of funds or a
failure to adhere to core program requirements revealed by the record in these matters. Furthermore, we
find that denial of funding in these cases would inflict undue hardship on the applicants. In these cases,
the applicants have demonstrated that rigid compliance with USAC’s application procedures does not
further the purposes of section 254(h) or serve the public interest.
57
We therefore grant these appeals and
remand them to USAC for further processing consistent with this Order.
52
Request for Review of Cook County School District 130; Request for Waiver of Creighton Community Public
Schools; Request for Review of Gladwin County Library; Request for Review of Tamaroa Public School District
#5; Request for Review of Welch Independent School District 17; Request for Review of Yeshiva Ktana of Passaic.
53
Request for Review of Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District; Request for Review of Morley-
Stanwood Community School District; Request for Review of Sibley East Independent School District #2310;
Request for Review of Temple Terrace Public Library.
54
47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b).
55
Id.
56
See, e.g., North Dakota Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7389, para. 13; Wilmington Public Schools Order, 17 FCC Rcd at
12071, paras. 7-8; South Barber Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18437-38, para. 7.
57
See 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
11
21. North Dakota Petition for Reconsideration
. As part of this decision, we also grant a
Petition for Reconsideration of an Order filed by the Information Technology Department of the State of
North Dakota.
58
North Dakota mailed its FCC Form 471 certification after the deadline, but asserts that it
did not understand when it needed to mail the certification after filing the application electronically.
59
In
North Dakota, the Commission rejected North Dakota’s arguments that a waiver of its filing requirements
was warranted because of, inter alia, the complex nature of the application process and the detrimental
effect the denial would have on the public schools and libraries in North Dakota.
60
The Commission
stated that “the size and complexity of the application” did not establish good cause to waive the
Commission’s rules, and reiterated that all applicants are subject to the same filing rules, which are
necessary for the program to be administered in an efficient and equitable basis.
61
22. On reconsideration, we find that good cause exists to waive the deadline for filing the FCC
Form 471. We now believe that, consistent with our reasoning above, a procedural violation should not
have resulted in the rejection in North Dakota’s entire application. Contrary to our earlier ruling, we note
that our waiver standard allows us to consider hardship when analyzing whether particular facts meet the
standard. We find here that denial of funding in this case would inflict undue hardship on the applicant.
Notably, at this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, misuse of funds or a failure to adhere
to core program requirements. Furthermore, we find that in this case, the applicant has demonstrated that
rigid compliance with USAC’s application procedures does not further the purposes of section 254(h) or
serve the public interest.
62
For these reasons, we find that a waiver of our filing requirements is
warranted, and we grant the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Information Technology Department
of the State of North Dakota.
23. Additional Processing Directives for USAC
. As of the effective date of this Order, we
require USAC to provide all E-rate applicants with an opportunity to cure ministerial and clerical errors
on their FCC Form 470 or FCC Form 471, and an additional opportunity to file the required certifications.
Specifically, USAC shall inform applicants promptly in writing of any and all ministerial or clerical errors
that are detected in their applications, along with a clear and specific explanation of how the applicant can
remedy those errors. USAC shall also inform applications promptly in writing of any missing or
incomplete certifications. Applicants shall have 15 calendar days from the date of receipt of notice in
writing by USAC to amend or refile their FCC Form 470, FCC Form 471 or associated certifications.
63
USAC shall apply this directive to all pending applications and appeals even if such applications or
appeals are no longer within the filing window. The 15-day period is limited enough to ensure that
funding decisions are not unreasonably delayed for E-rate applicants and should be sufficient time to
58
Application for Review of a Decision by the Wireline Competition Bureau, Information Technology Department
State of North Dakota, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board of Directors of the
National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., File No. SLD-245592, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 18
FCC Rcd 21521 (2003).
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id., 18 FCC Rcd at 21525-27, paras. 12, 17-18.
62
See 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).
63
Applicants will be presumed to have received notice five days after such notice is postmarked by USAC. USAC,
however, shall continue to work beyond the 15 days with applicants attempting in good faith to amend their
applications. This 15-day opportunity to refile or amend applications exists only where applicants have attempted to
file their FCC Form 470 and FCC Form 471 within the filing window. If applicants miss the filing window entirely,
they would need to file a request for waiver of the deadline with the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
12
correct truly unintentional ministerial and clerical errors.
64
The opportunity for applicants to amend their
filings to cure minor errors will also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Fund. Because
applicants who are eligible for funding will now receive funding where previously it was denied for minor
errors, we will ensure that funding is distributed first to the applicants who are determined by our rules to
be most in need of funding. As a result, universal service support will be received by schools in which it
will have the greatest impact for the most students. Furthermore, the opportunity to amend the
application will improve the efficiency of the schools and libraries program. If USAC helps applicants
file correct and complete applications initially, USAC should be able to reduce the money it spends on
administering the fund because fewer appeals will be filed protesting the denial of funding for these types
of issues. Therefore, we believe this additional opportunity to cure inadvertent administrative,
ministerial, and clerical errors on applications will improve the administration of fund.
24. To complement this effort, USAC shall also develop a more targeted outreach program and
educational efforts to inform and enlighten applicants on the various application requirements, including
the application and certification deadlines, in an attempt to reduce these types of errors. We expect that
the additional outreach and educational efforts will better assist E-rate applicants in meeting the
program’s requirements. Similarly, USAC shall develop a targeted outreach program designed to identify
schools and libraries that have timely posted an FCC Form 470 on USAC’s website but have failed to file
the associated FCC Form 470 certification. USAC should also notify applicants that have filed an FCC
Form 470, but have failed to file an FCC Form 471 or its certification by the close of the filing window.
We believe such an outreach program will increase awareness of the filing rules and procedures and will
assist applicants in filing complete and correct application. As we noted above, we believe that these
changes will improve the overall efficacy of the program.
25. In addition, we note that, in the Comprehensive Review NPRM, we started a proceeding to
address the concerns raised herein by, among other things, improving the application and disbursement
process for the schools and libraries support mechanism.
65
Although we expect that the additional
direction we have provided in this Order will help ensure that eligible schools and libraries can more
effectively navigate the application procedures, this action does not obviate the need to take steps to
reform and improve the program based on the record in the Comprehensive Review proceeding.
26. We emphasize the limited nature of this decision. As stated above, we recognize that filing
deadlines and minimum processing standards are necessary for the efficient administration of the E-rate
program. Although we grant the 196 subject appeals before us, our action here does not eliminate the
minimum processing standards, or the deadlines for filing the FCC Form 470 and FCC Form 471, or
certifications to the FCC Form 470 or 471. We continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete
and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. The direction we provide
USAC will not lessen or preclude any application review procedures of USAC. All existing E-rate
program rules and requirements will continue to apply, including USAC’s minimum processing
standards, the existing forms and documentation with the associated certifications, USAC’s Program
Integrity Assurance review procedures, and other processes designed to ensure applicants meet the
applicable program requirements.
27. Finally, we are committed to guarding against waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensuring that
funds disbursed through the E-rate program are used for appropriate purposes. Although we grant the
appeals addressed here, we reserve the right to conduct audits and investigations to determine compliance
64
We note that applicants will retain the ability to appeal decisions denying funding requests on the grounds
discussed herein.
65
Comprehensive Review NPRM.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
13
with the E-rate program rules and requirements. Because audits and investigations may provide
information showing that a beneficiary or service provider failed to comply with the statute or
Commission rules, such proceedings can reveal instances in which universal service funds were
improperly disbursed or in a manner inconsistent with the statute or the Commission’s rules. To the
extent we find that funds were not used properly, we will require USAC to recover such funds through its
normal processes. We emphasize that we retain the discretion to evaluate the uses of monies disbursed
through the E-rate program and to determine on a case-by-case basis that waste, fraud, or abuse of
program funds occurred and that recovery is warranted. We remain committed to ensuring the integrity
of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own
procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
28. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-
4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections
1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for
Review and Requests for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.507(c) and 54.504(b) filed by the petitioners as listed
in Appendices A-C ARE GRANTED.
29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 1.3,
and 54.722(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review
and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in Appendices A-C ARE REMANDED to
USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order.
30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 1.3,
and 54.722(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by the Information Technology Department of the State of North Dakota IS
GRANTED and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this
Order.
31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, USAC SHALL
COMPLETE its review of each remanded application listed in the Appendices and issue an award or a
denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 days from release of this Order.
32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
14
APPENDIX A
Form 470 Certification Filing Violations
Requests for Review and Waivers
Applicant Application Number Funding
Year
Type of Appeal
Bishop Perry Middle School
New Orleans, LA
487170 2005 Request for Waiver
Canby School District 891
Canby, MN
414927, 401098, 412330 2004 Request for Review
Candler County Board of Education
Metter, GA
314603 2002 Request for Review
Cassopolis Public School
Cassopolis, MI
256502 2001 Request for Review
and Waiver
Construction Careers Center
St. Louis, MO
358508 2003 Request for Review
Cook County School District 130
Blue Island, IL
357892 2003 Request for Review
Creighton Community Public Schools
Creighton, NE
356062 2003 Request for Waiver
Dunmore School District
Dunmore, PA
391672 2004 Request for Review
Fluvanna County School District
Palmyra, VA
360642 2003 Request for Review
Fort Atkinson School District
Fort Atkinson, WI
366145, 366454, 366439,
366372
2003 Request for Review.
Gladwin County Library
Gladwin, MI
219040 2001 Request for Review
Goose Creek Consolidated
Independent School District
Baytown, TX
320463 2002 Request for Review
Hart County School System
Hartwell, GA
395563 2004 Request for Review
Interstate 35 Community School District
Truro, IA
479137 2005 Request for Waiver
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
15
Lydia Bruun Woods
Memorial Library
Falls City, NE
403265 2004 Request for Review
Mabton School District 120
Mabton, WA
461518, 461467, 461451 2005 Request for Review
Morley-Stanwood Community School
District
Morley, TX
378662 2003 Request for Review.
New York State Office of Children &
Family Services
Rensselaer, NY
376340 2003 Request for Review
Northwestern Local School District
West Salem, OH
412995 2004 Request for Waiver
Proctor Public Schools
Proctor, MN
235170 2001 Request for Review
Sibley East Independent School District
#2310
Arlington, MN
297751 2003 Request for Review
Tamaroa Public School District #5
Tamaroa, IL
340729 2003 Request for Review
Temple Terrace Public Library
Temple Terrance, FL
449438 2005 Request for Review
Tewksbury Public Schools
Tewksbury, MA
308197 2002 Request for Review
Unified School District 443 Information
Technologies Services
Dodge City, KS
403217 2004 Request for Review
Welch Independent School District 17
Welch, OK
349714 2003 Request for Review
Weld County School District Re-3(J)
Keenesburg, CO
421281, 421385, 421459,
422351, 422888, 423983,
425168, 425369, 425597,
426534, 426996, 427565,
428856, 428987, 429298,
429353, 429469, 429523,
429771, 430370, 430435,
430531, 430671, 431114,
429771, 432087, 432271,
432519, 432845, 433034
2004 Request for Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
16
Weld County School District Six
Greeley, CO
402863 2004 Request for Review.
Yeshiva Ktana of Passaic
Passaic, NJ
259799 2001 Request for Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
17
APPENDIX B
Form 471 Filed Outside of Filing Window
Applicant
Application Number Funding
Year
Type of Appeal
A.C.E. Charter High School
Tucson, AZ
487210, 487191 2005 Request for Waiver
American School for the Deaf
Hartford, CT
473646 2005 Request for Review
Assabet Valley Regional Vocational
School District
Marlborough, MA
491686 2005 Request for Waiver
Associated Marine Institutes, Inc.
Tampa, FL
482146, 474721, 476843,
480311, 480629, 480704,
480839, 480974, 481068,
478721, 479527, 481139,
479447, 478855, 478807,
479065, 480958, 475981,
481275, 479475, 479808,
480767, 480119, 474565,
475800, 480552, 476450,
474803, 475320, 475366,
475462, 475714, 480017,
474863, 475160, 479642,
481199, 476646, 472798,
475270, 480246, 476050,
481303, 474970, 479744,
480432, 474296, 471758,
474316, 474338, 474309,
474304
2005 Request for Waiver
Augusta County Library
Fishersville, VA
435101 2004 Request for Waiver
Barnwell County School District 45
Barnwell, SC
484610 2005 Request for Review
Bath County School District
Owingsville, KY
392300 2004 Request for Review
Beavertown Community Library
Beavertown, PA
488228 2005 Request for Waiver
Blackwell Public Schools
Blackwell, OK
467916
2005 Request for Waiver
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
18
Blackwell Public Schools
Blackwell, OK
467924
2005 Request for Waiver
Bonnie Brae Educational Center
School
Liberty Corner, NJ
486975 2005 Request for Review
Brooklyn Jesuit Prep
Brooklyn, NY
480763, 481479 2005 Request for Waiver
Brown County School Corporation
Nashville, IN
423655 2004 Request for Review
Caruthers Unified School District
Caruthers, CA
229344 2001 Request for Review
Cecil County Public Schools
Elkton, MD
465857 2005 Request for Review
Centerville School District 60-1
Centerville, SD
342315 2003 Request for Review
Central Catholic High School
Toledo, OH
393964 2004 Request for Review
Clearwater Memorial Library
Orofino, ID
361785 2003 Request for Review
Clinton County Board of Education
Albany, KY
367905 2003 Request for Waiver
Clinton Public Schools
Clinton, AR
475637 2005 Request for Review
Coahoma County Public Schools
Clarksdale, MS
477513 2005 Request for Review
Colleton County School District
Walterboro, SC
455022 2005 Request for Review
Colonial Intermediate Unit 20
Easton, PA
444367
2005 Request for Appeal
Consorcio de Escuelas y Bibliotecas
de Puerto Rico
San Juan, PR
124 individual
applicants—
see below
2001 Request for Review
CPC Behavioral Healthcare
Neptune, NJ
432289 2004 Request for Request
for Waiver
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
19
Delta County School District
Delta, CO
420245
424408
2004 Request for Review
Derby Public Schools
Derby, CT
485648 2005 Request for Review
Design and Engineering Services
The Navajo Nation
Window Rock, AZ
477250,
486357,
483251
2005 Request for Waiver
Fairfax School District R3
Fairfax, MO
456149 2005 Request for Review
Ferndale Area School District
Johnstown, PA
368645 2003 Request for Review
Garvey School District
Rosemead, CA
492144, 492103 2005 Request for Review
Gaston County School District
Gastonia, NC
487076 2005 Request for Waiver
Germantown School District
Appleton, WI
488530 2005 Request for Review
Hawaii State Public Library
Honolulu, HI
351332, 351403, 372750,
372786, 372857, 372883,
372950, 372980, 373018,
373092, 373221, 373245,
373271, 373305, 373421,
373443, 373654, 373664,
373676, 373688, 373703,
373717, 373792, 373816,
375664, 375707, 376842,
377120
2003 Request for Waiver
Holmes District School Board
Bonifay, FL
463914 2005 Request for Waiver
Howard County School District
Owings Mills, MD
(filed by E-Rate Elite Services, Inc.)
310851 2002 Request for Waiver
Hubbard Independent School District
Hubbard, TX
485763 2005 Request for Review
Indian Oasis Baboquivari District 40
Sells, AZ
435737 2004 Request for Waiver
Island Trees Public Library
Island Trees, NY
487206 2005 Request for Waiver
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
20
Jefferson City School District
Jefferson, GA
434189 2004 Request for Review
Jefferson School District
Daly City, CA
489764 2005 Request for Waiver
Jemez Mountain School District
Gallina, NM
480502 2005 Request for Waiver
Jemez Mountain School District
Gallina, NM
481827 2005 Request for Waiver
Kent City Schools
Kent, OH
231188 2001 Request for Review
Laporte School District 306
Laporte, MN
487654 2005 Request for Review
Las Vegas City Schools
Las Vegas, NM
405536 2004 Request for Waiver
Leggett Valley Unified School District
Leggett, CA
538735
2006 Request for Waiver
Loogootee Community School Corporation
Loogootee, IN
454754, 455222 2005 Request for Review
Los Alamitos Unified School District
Los Alamitos, CA
364589 2003 Request for Review
Madera Unified School District
Madera, CA
230938 2001 Request for Review
Maine School Administrative District #36
Livermore Falls, ME
487135 2005 Request for Review
Malone Independent School District
Malone, TX
458773 2005 Request for Review
McClure Community Library
McClure, PA
488239 2005 Request for Waiver
Mel Blount Youth Home
Vidalia, GA
378809 2003 Request for Review
Meriwether County School System
Greenville, GA
488532, 488630, 488634,
488637, 488639
2005 Request for Review
Middleburg Community Library
Middleburg, PA
487961 2005 Request for Waiver
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
21
Millennium Community School
Columbus, OH
419137 2004 Request for Waiver
Minnesota Transition School
Minneapolis, MN
383596 2003 Request for Waiver
Minnewaska Area Schools
Glenwood, MN
FCC Form 470 Number
688010000570286
2006 Request for Waiver
Montfort & Allie B. Jones Memorial
Library
Bristow, OK
398439 2004 Request for Review
Mount Ayr Community School District
Mount Ayr, IA
487717 2005 Request for Waiver
Mount Saint John School
Deep River, CT
458882 2005 Request for Waiver
Mt. Carroll Township Public Library
Mt. Carroll, IL
358693 2003 Request for Waiver
Nativity Mission School
New York, NY
480269 2005 Request for Waiver
Nelson County Public Schools
Lovingson, VA
433422 2004 Request for Waiver
North East Independent School
District
San Antonio, TX
472357, 472537, 454936,
446694
2005 Request for Review
North Panola School District
Sardis, MS
484781, 485017, 482009,
483905
2005 Request for Review
Northwest Institute for Contemporary
Learning, Inc.
Chicago, IL
470821 2005 Request for Waiver
Oglala Lakota Technology Consortium
Porcupine, SD
435405 2004 Request for Review
Our Lady of Refuge
Brooklyn, NY
346749 2003 Request for Review
Our Lady of The Lake School
Mandeville, LA
FCC Form 470 Number
607530000583035
2006 Request for Waiver
Perrysburg Exempt Village School District
Perrysburg, OH
433571 2004 Request for Review
and Waiver
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
22
Pierce City School District R6
Pierce City, MI
260567 2001 Request for Waiver
Pinon Dormitory
Pinon, AZ
482087 2005 Request for Waiver
Queen of Apostles Catholic School
Alexandria, VA
486686 2005 Request for Waiver
Richmond Public Library
Richmond, VA
433700 2004 Request for Waiver
Rylander Memorial Library
San Saba, TX
458867 2005 Request for Review
Saint John Grammar School
Orange, NJ
384182 2003 Request for Review
Selinsgrove Community Library
Selinsgrove, PA
487907 2005 Request for Waiver
Southeast Delco School District
Folcroft, PA
421728, 421881 2004 Request for Review
Southeastern Libraries Cooperating
Rochester, MN
251453 2001 Request for Review
St. Clement’s Regional Catholic
School
Saratoga Springs, NY
386976 2004 Request for Review
St. Elizabeth Interparochial School
Wyckoff, NJ
409287 2004 Request for Review
St. Francis of Assisi School
Brooklyn, NY
FCC Form 470 Number
450810000564257
2006 Request for Waiver
St. Ignatius Academy
New York, NY
484436 2005 Request for Waiver
St. Mary's School
Leipsic, OH
488671 2005 Request for Waiver
SuperNet Consortium
Whitehouse, TX
460573 2005 Request for Waiver
Tiverton School Department
Tiverton, RI
487097 2005 Request for Waiver
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
23
Trinity Christian School
Fayetteville, NC
432746 2004 Request for Review
Unadilla Community School
Unadilla, NE
487072 2005 Request for Waiver
Wabash Valley Educational Center
West Lafayette, IN
485945 2005 Request for Waiver
Wallington Public Schools
Wallington, NJ
40909 2004 Request for Waiver
Walnut Community School District
Walnut, IA
402680 2004 Request for Waiver
Washington Local School District
Toledo, OH
434128 2004 Request for Review
Watson School District #56
Watson, OK
394230, 398535 2004 Request for Review
Westside Holistic Family Services
Chicago, IL
470792 2005 Request for Waiver
Whitfield County School District
Dalton, GA
387068 2004 Request for Review
Wilkinson County School District
Irwinton, GA
415952, 416125, 423714,
430873, 431049, 431202
2004 Request for Waiver
Wilson Memorial Library
Keota, IA
386222 2003 Request for Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
24
Form 471 Filed Outside of Filing Window
Petitions for Reconsideration
List of Appellants included as
Consorcio de Escuelas y Bibliotecas
de Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Applicant:
66
SLD File No.:
Academia Adventista de Florida 227675
Academia Adventista de Mucarabones 228865
Academia Adventista del Centro Ramon Rivera Perez 228164
Academia Adventista de Maunabo 228926
Academia Adventista del Naguabo 228944
Academia Adventista del Noreste 228190
Academia Adventista del Norte 228207
Academia Adventista del Oeste 228216
Academia Adventista del Suroeste 228253
Academia Adventista Metropolitana 228978, 260779
Academia Alexandra 228742
Academia Cayey 228908
Academia Cristiana Un Nuevo Amanecer 255896
Academia de Ensenanza Moderna, Inc. 232429
Academia Paraiso de Dorado 232305
Academia Pentecostal Bethel 228265
Academia Presbiteriana Reverendo Juan E. Mercado 231427
Academia Primaria 228886
Academia Regional Adventista Central 228996
Academia Regional Adventista del Este 229001
Academia Regional Adventista del Norte 229028
Academia Regional Adventista del Sur 229041
66
Applicant names are listed as they appeared on the FCC Form 471 under appeal, and differ in some cases from the
names as they appeared in the pleadings. In addition, two applicants appearing in the pleadings, Biblioteca Publica
Aguas Buenas and Colegio Congregacion Mita, are not listed because there is no record of these parties having
submitted an application in Funding Year 2001.
Chawanakee Joint Elementary
School District
North Fork, CA
229391 2001 Application for
Review
High Bridge Board of Education
High Bridge, NJ
328078
2002 Petition for
Reconsideration
Neches Independent School District
Neches, TX
325411 2002 Petition for
Reconsideration
Siskiyou County Library
Yreka, CA
325514 2002 Petition for
Reconsideration
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
25
Academia Sabana Llana 228960
Academia Santa Rosa de Lima 228760
Academia Santo Tomas de Aquino Elemental 229432
Academia Santo Tomas de Aquino Superior 229409
Bella Vista Adventist Academy 228788
Biblioteca Electronica Bo, Esperanza 260586
Biblioteca Electronica Municipio Autonomo de Carolina 260589
Biblioteca Electronica Municipio de Area Aibonito 243702
Biblioteca Municipal Caguas 236507
Biblioteca Municipal de Bayamon, Dr Agustin Stahl 243770
Biblioteca Municipal de Bayamon, Pilar Barbosa 244366
Biblioteca Municipal de Boquillas 244127
Biblioteca Municipal de Catano, Alberto Davila Fuentes 243846
Biblioteca Municipal de Cortes 244139
Biblioteca Municipal de Guaynabo 243958
Biblioteca Municipal de Juncos, Jose M Gallardo 244067
Biblioteca Municipal de Montebello 244183
Biblioteca Municipal de Pugnado 244159
Biblioteca Municipal de Quebradillas 260161
Biblioteca Municipal Ernesto Cora Vega 243810
Biblioteca Municipal Las Piederas 243153
Biblioteca Municipal Manati Francisco Alvarez Marrero 236736
Biblioteca Municipal Mayaguez 233513
Biblioteca Pedro Albizu Campos 236517, 244880, 254526
Biblioteca Publica Adjuntas 234495
Biblioteca Publica Aguada 237665
Biblioteca Publica Anasco-Manuel Guzman 233108
Biblioteca Publica Arecibo 243713
Biblioteca Publica Barceloneta 233178
Biblioteca Publica Camuy 237339
Biblioteca Publica Camuy, Bo. Quebrada 236860
Biblioteca Publica Cayey 237615
Biblioteca Publica Celba 236715
Biblioteca Publica Ciales 237413
Biblioteca Publica Cidra 243862
Biblioteca Publica Coamo 237300
Biblioteca Publica Comeio 260354
Biblioteca Publica de Area Corozal 237386
Biblioteca Publica de Arroyo 243758
Biblioteca Publica de Culebra 237506
Biblioteca Publica de Luquillo 244455, 260451
Biblioteca Publica Fajardo 243897
Biblioteca Publica Guanica 243933
Biblioteca Publica Guayama 236689
Biblioteca Publica Guayanilla 234409
Biblioteca Publica Gurabo 237594
Biblioteca Publica Hatillo 237581
Biblioteca Publica Humacao 244008
Biblioteca Publica Jayuya 237466
Biblioteca Publica Lajas 237564
Biblioteca Publica Las Marias 244104
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
26
Biblioteca Publica Loiza 233070
Biblioteca Publica Maricao 233628
Biblioteca Publica Maricao-Indiana Alta 237436
Biblioteca Publica Maunabo, Rafael Rodriguez Gonzales 260104
Biblioteca Publica Municipal Computarizada de Naranijito 260232
Biblioteca Publica Penuelas 244332
Biblioteca Publica Rio Grande 236756
Biblioteca Publica Sabana Grande 237551
Biblioteca Publica Salinas 244170
Biblioteca Publica San Juan-Cantera Rosa Sanchez 236946
Biblioteca Publica San Juan-La Peria 244233, 260772
Biblioteca Publica San Lorenzo 236812
Biblioteca Publica Santa Isabel Pedro M Alomar 237746
Biblioteca Publica Toa Alta 244264
Biblioteca Publica Toa Baja 233246, 237587
Biblioteca Publica Utuado 244326
Biblioteca Publica Vieques 237716
Biblioteca Publica Villalba 236778
Biblioteca Publica Yabucoa 244349
Biblioteca Publica Yauco 237499
Biblioteca San Sebastian 244244
Colegio Bilingue Light Of The Children 228801
Colegio Catolico Notre Dame Elemental 214568, 229355
Colegio Catolico Notre Dame Secundario 229379
Colegio Cedi 232404
Colegio Emmanuel, Inc. 232226
Colegio Immaculada Concepcion 229197
Colegio Nacional 232314
Colegio Nuestra Senora del Carmen 229214
Colegio Nuestra Senora del Rosario – Ciales 229122
Colegio Nuestra Senora del Rosario – Vega Baja 229226
Colegio Presbiteriano San Sebastian 230479
Colegio Sagrada Familia 229244
Colegio San Antonio 228813
Colegio San Felipe 229093
Colegio San Jose 229291
Colegio San Juan Bautista 223597, 229170
Colegio San Juan Bosco 224671, 229127, 29137
Colegio San Miguel Elemental 222815, 229075
Colegio San Miguel Secundario 222816, 229059
Colegio San Rafael 222317, 225416, 229329, 260627
Colegio San Vicente Ferrer 230419
Colegio Sana Rosa Superior 231235
Colegio Santa Rosa Elemental 230444
Colegion Congregación Mita 255793
Escuela Evangelica Unida de Fajardo 231480
Fajardo Community Private School 232444
Hogar Colegio La Milagrosa 229145
Liceo Aguadillano 228839
Piaget Bilingual Academy Of Manati 258270
Saint Patrick's Bilingual School 232457
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
27
APPENDIX C
Minimum Processing Standards Violations
Applicant
Application Number Funding
Year
Type of Appeal
Alexander City Schools
Alexander City, AL
440884 2005 Request for Review
Athens City Schools
Athens, TN
476573 2005 Request for Review
Bay St. Louis-Waveland School District
Bay St. Louis, MS
434001, 434002, 434003,
434008
2004 Request for Review
Biblioteca Electronica de Rio Hondo
Comerio, PR
489565
2005 Request for Review
Bucksport School Department
Bucksport, ME
471929 2005 Request for Review
Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake Central School
District
Scotia, NY
434258 2004 Request for Review
Calumet City School District No. 155
Calumet City, IL
442354 2005 Request for Review
City of Boston, Department of
Neighborhood Development
Boston, MA
330664 2002 Request for Review
Clovis Unified School District
Clovis, CA
320217 2002 Request for Review
Colegio San Antonio
Isabela, PR
434925 2004 Request for Review
and Waiver
Colton School District #53
Colton, OR
434227 2004 Request for Review
Cooperative Educational Service Agency
#12
Ashland, WI
481695 2005 Request for Review
Creighton School District
Phoenix, AZ
471774 2005 Request for Review
Elsa Public Library
Elsa, TX
472948 2005 Request for Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
28
Emery Unified School District
Emeryville, CA
386068 2003 Request for Review
Fairfax County Public Schools
Arlington, VA
NEC.471.03-13-
00.29600003
1999 Request for Review
Forsyth County Public Library
Winston-Salem, NC
386053 2003 Request for Review
Franklin Lakes School District
Franklin Lakes, NJ
438092 2003 Request for Review
French Camp Academy
French Camp, MS
386007 2003 Request for Review
Henderson County Public Library
Lexington, TN
489560 2005 Request for Review
Hood River County School District
Hood River, Oregon
463073 2004 Request for Review
Incarnation School
Queens Village, NY
484104 2005 Request for Review
Jackson District Library
Jackson, MI
386004 2003 Request for Review
Lawrence County School District
Monticello, MS
423967, 424237 2004 Request for Review
Leary Independent School District
Hooks, TX
386045 2003 Request for Review
Leary School of Virginia
Alexandria, VA
429541 2004 Request for Review
Mabton School District 120
Mabton, WA
330366, 331297 2002 Request for Review
Maine School Administrative
District No.36
Livermore Falls, ME
434452 2004 Request for Review
Marshfield Public Schools
Marshfield, MA
454206 2005 Request for Review
Maumee City School District
Maumee, OH
433796 2004 Request for Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
29
McKittrick School District
McKittrick, CA
457558 2005 Request for Review
Memphis City Schools
Memphis, TN
386323 2003 Request for Review
Mililani-Mauka Elementary School
Mililani, HI
435235 2004 Request for Review
Moencopi Day School
Tuba City, AZ
388623 2004 Request for Review
Northampton Public Schools
Northampton, MA
434124 2004 Request for Review
Radford City Schools
Radford, VA
328239 2002 Request for Review
Rangeley Public Library
Rangeley, ME
412504 2004 Request for Review
Richards Independent Schools
Richards, Texas
466139, 466553 2005 Request for Review
Richford High School
Richford, VT
478956 2005 Request for Review
Santa Cruz Catholic School
Tucson, AZ
477761 2005 Request for Review
Sarah A. Reed Children's Center
Erie, PA
478696 2005 Request for Review
Sevier County Library
De Queen, AR
489555 2005 Request for Review
South Winneshiek Community School
District
Calmar, IA
434742 2004 Request for Review
St. Lawrence Catholic School
Tampa, FL
364085 2003 Request for Review
St. Joseph the Carpenter School
Cranford, New Jersey
293467 2002 Request for Review
St. Mary’s Academy
Champlain, NY
464088 2005 Request for Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
30
Suffolk Cooperative Library System,
Bellport, NY
206068 1999 Request for Review
Sweetser
Saco, Maine
472924 2005 Request for Review
Tennessee School Boards Association
Nashville, TN
331527 2002 Request for Review
Teton County Library
Jackson, WY
386021 2003 Request for Waiver
Toledo Academy of Learning
Toledo, OH
472874 2005 Request for Review
and Waiver
Unger Memorial Library
Plainview, Texas
457480 2005 Request for Review
Upper Adams School District
Biglerville, PA
384741 2003 Request for Review
Vidalia City School District
Vidalia, GA
435029 2004 Request for Review
Vidalia City School District
Vidalia, GA
462880 2005 Request for Review
Vidalia City Schools
Vidalia, GA
435053 2004 Request for Review
Volusia County Schools
DeLand, FL
264583 2001 Request for Review
West Genesee Central School District
Syracuse, NY
146585 1999 Request for Review
West Sioux Community School District
Hawarden, IA
435404 2004 Request for Review
Minimum Processing Standards Violations
Petition for Reconsideration
City of Newport News
Newport News, VA
NEC.471.12-16-
99.2700001
2000 Petition for
Reconsideration
Des Moines Public Schools
Des Moines, IA
267486 2001 Application for
Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
31
King and Queen County Public Schools
King and Queen Courthouse, VA
NEC.471.01-19-
00.05000968
2000 Petition for
Reconsideration
Paramus School District
Paramus, NJ
(filed by Thomas Communications &
Technologies, LLC)
386049 2003 Application for
Review
Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-54
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re: Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by
Bishop Perry Middle School New Orleans,LA, et al.; Schools and Libraries Universal Service
Support Mechanism, Order (File Nos. SLD-487170, et al., CC Docket No. 02-6)
E-Rate plays a decisive role in providing schools and libraries with the communications tools
they need for our children and communities to compete and prosper in this digital age. Because access to
E-Rate is so important, we need to be dead serious about rooting out abuses and punishing those few bad
actors who would exploit the program. But that is not the case in the select appeals before the
Commission today. Clearly, these cases are not about waste, fraud or abuse. These are about limited, and
I believe, relatively minor ministerial errors. When a school inadvertently provides the right information
on a slightly dated but virtually identical form, when technical problems prevent an applicant from
interfacing with USAC’s electronic filing system and when a third-party carrier prevents an application
from arriving in a timely manner, flat-out funding denial is a harsh consequence. It can be especially
harsh when, as was the case in one application here, a minor clerical error led to a denial of E-Rate
funding for an entire state. In fact, it becomes hard to square denial for slight clerical errors like these
with our duties under the statute to further the deployment of advanced services. For these reasons, I
support today’s decision.
