FCC Web Documents citing 54.722

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1277A1.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Blessed Sacrament's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Blessed Sacrament's appeal, Blessed Sacrament may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 17, 2000, by Blessed Sacrament School, Washington, DC, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Walsh, Blessed Sacrament School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1278A1.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Brevard County's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 8, 2000, by Brevard County School District, Viera, Florida, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1279A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 29, 2000, by Calallen Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William C. Ball, Calallen Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1280A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 23, 2000, by Casa Grande Union High School District, Casa Grande, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Steven R. DiMuzio, Casa Grande
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1281A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 27, 2000, by Covina-Valley Unified School District, Covina, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ray Harder, Covina-Valley Unified School District, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1282A1.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 28, 2000, by the Enlarged City School District of Troy, Troy, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Armand J. Reo,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1283A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 1, 2000, by Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School District No. 775, Kerkhoven, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kim Hippen, Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1284A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 14, 1999, by Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jenny Ettenheim, Milwaukee Jewish Day School, dated September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1285A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss North Chicago's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on North Chicago's initial appeal, North Chicago may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tyrone Pipkin, North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2264A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Carl Schurz failed to file an appeal of the August 17, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Carl Schurz's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School, Chicago, Illinois on April 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2265A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 23, 2000, by Central Agency for Jewish Education, Miami, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathie Yuz, Central
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2266A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 5, 2000, by Clifton Independent School District, Clifton, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Brenda Vrazel, Clifton Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2267A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colonial failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colonial's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colonial School District, East Concord, New York on June 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R. F. Thompson, Thompson Communications Company, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2268A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Eastern Plains failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Eastern Plains' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico on July 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Becky Rowley, Clovis community College, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2269A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Garden Grove failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Garden Grove's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Garden Grove Unified School District, Garden Grove, California on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cung Nguyen, Garden Grove Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2270A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Judge Memorial Catholic High School, Salt Lake City, Utah, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jane
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2271A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Kanawha County failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Kanawha County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Kanawha County School District, Charleston, West Virginia on June 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Patrick Law, Kanawha County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2272A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 18, 2000, by Marion School District 54, Marion, Montana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ron Osborne, Marion School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2273A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Newburgh failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Newburgh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laval S. Wilson, Newburgh Enlarged City School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2274A1.pdf
  • Administrator. Because New Castle cannot show that it filed a timely appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Castle's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Castle Community Schools, New Castle, Indiana on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Larry Koby, New Castle Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2275A1.pdf
  • the Administrator. Because Oscoda failed to file an appeal of the December 1, 1998 and February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Oscoda's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Oscoda Area Schools, Oscoda, Michigan on May 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from W.C. Bill Martin, Oscoda Area Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2276A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 2, 2000, by Pace School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kai S. Hoke, Pace School, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2277A1.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: October 6, 2000 Released: October 10, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 20, 1999, by Pinckneyville District #50, Pinckneyville, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim O'Leary, Pinckneyville District #50,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2278A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 2000, by Racine Unified School District of Racine, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael S. Dingman,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2279A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Saint Andrew failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Saint Andrew's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Saint Andrew School, Chicago, Illinois on June 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jack Percival, Saint Andrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2280A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because San Juan failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss San Juan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by San Juan Unified School District, Carmichael, California on May 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tim McCarty, San Juan Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2281A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Scotch Plains failed to file appeals of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decisions dismissing Scotch Plains' appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, Scotch Plains, New Jersey on May 30, 2000, and May 31, 2000, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donald L. Williams, Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2496A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Arvin Brown's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Arvin Brown's initial appeal, Arvin Brown may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on August 8, 2000 by Arvin A. Brown Library, Richford, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Annette Goyne, Arvin A. Brown Library, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2497A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ballinger failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ballinger's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ballinger I.S.D., Ballinger, Texas on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laura Strube, Ballinger I.S.D., to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2498A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Big Rapids failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Big Rapids' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Big Rapids Public Schools, Big Rapids, Michigan on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph A. Bouman, Big Rapids Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2499A1.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Caledonia North failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Caledonia North's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Caledonia North Supervisory Union, Lyndonville, Vermont on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ann Riggie, Caledonia North Supervisory Union, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2500A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Douglas failed to file an appeal of the February 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Douglas' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Douglas Public Library, Douglas, Arizona on July 21, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Glenda Bavier, Douglas Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 21, 1999 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2501A1.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: November 7, 2000 Released: November 8, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2502A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Elgin failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Elgin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Elgin Independent School District 16, Elgin, Oklahoma on August 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Doris Wilson, Elgin Independent School District 16, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2503A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Holy Family failed to file an appeal of the June 6, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Holy Family's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Holy Family School, Sioux City, Iowa on August 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cindy Spenner, Holy Family School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2504A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the April 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Jefferson County School District, Fayette, Mississippi on July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John E. Dickey, Jefferson County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2505A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the September 14, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by The Jefferson School, Jefferson, Maryland on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul Thewsuvat, The Jefferson School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2506A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Granite failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Granite's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Granite School District, Salt Lake City, Utah on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. James Henderson, Granite School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2507A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 10, 2000, by Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, Nebraska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Steinberger, Lexington Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2508A1.txt
  • issuance of the June 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a weekend, Mt. Diablo's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Mt. Diablo's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Mt. Diablo's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Perry W. Polk, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2509A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 15, 2000, by Oregon Trail School District, Sandy, Oregon, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Miriam Mann, Oregon Trail
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2510A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southeastern failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southeastern's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio on August 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert L. Lindsey, Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2511A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southwick-Tolland failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southwick-Tolland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, Southwick, Massachusetts on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul R. Petit, Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2512A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Anthony failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Anthony's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Anthony School, New York, New York on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tess A. Alviar, St. Anthony School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2513A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Rita failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Rita's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Rita School, New Orleans, Louisiana on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Annette Baxley, St. Rita School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2514A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 30, 2000, by Yeshiva Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Green, Yeshiva Schools, dated July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2531A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Austin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Austin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Austin Public School 492, Austin, Minnesota on July 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lori Volz, Austin Public School 492, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 27, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2532A1.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a holiday, Bloomfield's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Bloomfield's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Bloomfield's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bloomfield Public Library, Bloomfield, Iowa on July 18, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Regina Gooden, Bloomfield Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 18, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2533A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Cumberland failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Cumberland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Cumberland County School District, Burkesville, Kentucky on July 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robin Sharp, Cumberland County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2534A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Joel Pate,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2535A1.txt
  • Because Florence Carlton failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 and May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence Carlton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence Carlton School District 15-6, Florence, Montana on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Elaine Huseby, Florence Carlton School District 15-6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2536A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Florence failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence City School District, Florence, Alabama on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Edison D. Barney, Florence City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2537A1.txt
  • Lincoln has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lincoln's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lincoln's initial appeal, Lincoln may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 8, 2000 by Lincoln School District 156, Calumet City, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dr. Kenneth Jandes, Lincoln School District 156, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2538A1.txt
  • issuance of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 9, 2000, a holiday, Moon Area's July 10, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Moon Area's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Moon Area's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Moon Area School District, Moon Township, Pennsylvania on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel H. Vogel, Moon Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2539A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Attleborough failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Attleborough's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Attleborough School District, North Attleborough, Massachusetts on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland Denault, North Attleborough School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2540A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gildford failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gildford's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Gildford School, Gildford, Montana on June 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Stahl, North Gildford School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 19, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2541A1.txt
  • the issuance of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 30, 2000, a weekend, Roosevelt Elementary's July 31, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Roosevelt Elementary's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Roosevelt's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, Phoenix, Arizona on August 22, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Harris, Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2542A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Simpson County's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Simpson County's initial appeal, Simpson County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 23, 2000 by Simpson County School District, Mendenhall, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kay Berry, Simpson County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2543A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because South Heart failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss South Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by South Heart School, South Heart, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paula Lengowski, South Heart School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2544A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Peter & Paul failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Peter & Paul's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by SS. Peter & Paul School, Cary, Illinois on July 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Katrina Lamkin, SS. Peter & Paul School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2545A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Patrick failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Patrick's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Patrick's School, Dickinson, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brenda L. Selinger, St. Patrick's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2546A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Swift River failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Swift River's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Swift River Elementary School, New Salem, Massachusetts on July 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol S. Holzberg, Swift River Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2547A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Vacaville failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Vacaville's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Vacaville Unified School District, Vacaville, California on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry D. Beckham, Vacaville Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2548A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because AECSD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss AECSD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Auburn Enlarged City School District, Fairport, New York on July 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Matthew Crider, ECC Technologies, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2549A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Chisago Lakes failed to file an appeal of the May 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Chisago Lakes' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Chisago Lakes School District #2144, Lindstrom, Minnesota on July 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cathryn E. Kolkind, Chisago Lakes School District #2144, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2550A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colton failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colton Joint Unified School District, Upland, California on September 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Kendrick, Colton Joint Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2551A1.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 11, 2000, a holiday, Durham's May 12, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Durham's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Durham's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Durham Unified School District, Durham, California on July 11, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Christy R. Patterson, Durham Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2552A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Elko County School District, Elko, Nevada, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William McLeod, Elko County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2553A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Girard failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Girard's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Girard City School District, Girard, Ohio on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anthony D. Ambrosio, Girard City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2554A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because McIntosh failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss McIntosh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by McIntosh County Schools, Darien, Georgia on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Debby Richardson, McIntosh County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2555A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, Hayti, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lawrence L. Furney,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2556A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ryan failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ryan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ryan Public School, Ryan, Oklahoma on August 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don A. Bogard, Ryan Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 23, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2557A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 11, 2000, by Traverse City Area Public Schools, Traverse City, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary P.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2558A1.txt
  • period after the issuance of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 6, 2000, a holiday, Xavier's August 7, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Xavier's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Xavier's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Xavier High School, Cedar Rapids, Iowa on August 29, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Henderson, Xavier High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2559A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because ESU No. 6 failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ESU No. 6's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Educational Service Unit No. 06, Omaha, Nebraska on August 30, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Ferneding, Educational Service Unit No. 06, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2561A1.txt
  • distance telephone service and other services that are characterized as ``telecommunications services'' in the service agreement between West Texas and Texas State Technical College. Given the prohibition on funding of telecommunications services provided by a non-telecommunications provider under program rules, we conclude that SLD properly denied funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the West Texas Telecommunications Consortium, Abilene, Texas, May 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Simoneau, West Texas Telecommunications Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 3, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2574A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Eatonville's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Eatonville School District, Eatonville, Washington, on May 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Raymond F. Arment, III, Eatonville School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2575A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Delta/Greely failed to file an appeal of the February 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Delta/Greely's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Delta/Greely School District, Delta Junction, Alaska on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Johnson, Delta/Greely School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 22, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2576A1.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Mississippi Department of Education, Jackson, Mississippi on April 14, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Mississippi's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2630A1.txt
  • program rules and procedures. The program's rules state repeatedly that universal service funds support only eligible services. Anderson should have been aware that it was seeking discounts for ineligible internal connections. We conclude SLD appropriately applied its 30 percent policy based upon the facts of this case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed May 30, 2000, by Anderson School, Staatsburg, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau In the Matter of Request for Review by Anderson School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2631A1.txt
  • stated that the lesser quotes were for ``the remaining schools,'' implying that these were separate quotes. Because SLD incorrectly determined that the funding request from Winterset was for ineligible services or products, Winterset's request for review is granted, and SLD is directed to reconsider Winterset's funding request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Winterset Community School District, Winterset, Iowa, IS GRANTED to the extent stated herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ivan T. Webber, on behalf of Winterset School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2642A1.txt
  • an ``inquiry,'' rather than an appeal. Because Houston Independent filed the letter within 30 days of SLD's June 16, 2000, Funding Commitment Decision Letter, it was timely filed. Accordingly, we grant in part Houston Independent's Letters of Appeal and direct SLD to review Houston Independent's initial appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas on August 18, 2000 and August 21, 2000, ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daryl Ann Borel, Houston Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2650A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bryn Athyn failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bryn Athyn's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bryn Athyn Church School, Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania on September 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melodie Greer, Bryn Athyn Church School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2651A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because EDmin failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss EDmin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by EDmin Open Systems, Inc., San Diego, California on September 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Shorts, EDmin Open Systems, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2652A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 8, 2000, by James Ward Elementary School, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Kline, James Ward
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2653A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Madera failed to file an appeal of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Madera's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Madera Unified School District, Madera, California on September 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Imrie, Madera Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2654A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 11, 2000, by Norwell Public Schools, Norwell, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard F. Sulc, Norwell Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2655A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Richland Colfax failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Richland Colfax's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Richland Colfax No. 1, Richland, Nebraska on September 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judith Kabourek, Richland Colfax No. 1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 6, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2656A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Rosa failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Rosa's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, Santa Rosa, New Mexico on September 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel Flores, Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2657A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ynez failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ynez's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District, Santa Ynez, California on September 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Fred Van Leuven, Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2658A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 28, 2000, by Saint John Bosco High School, Bellflower, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Stover, Saint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2659A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 23, 2000, by South Brunswick Township School District, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lester
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2660A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 2, 2000, by Westbrook High School, Westbrook, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert Vale, Westbrook High School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2699A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Northwestern's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on September 15, 2000, by Northwestern School District 56-3, Mellette, South Dakota, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2700A1.txt
  • after the issuance of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters fell on August 27, 2000, a holiday, Western Heights' August 28, 2000 appeals should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Western Heights' appeals and direct SLD to review Western Heights' appeals to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Western Heights School District I-41, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on September 28, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Western Heights School District I-41, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2701A1.txt
  • contravenes the Commission's policy that applicants shall not be permitted to amend completed FCC Forms 471 to remove ineligible service requests after the closure of the filing window deadline. If applicants were permitted to make such corrections, SLD and the Commission would face significant additional administrative burdens. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 28, 2000 by Free Library of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from H.E. Broadbent, Free Library of Philadelphia, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed, March 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2722A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies YCS' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Youth Consultation Services, Newark, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kathleen M. Bravo, Youth Consultation Service, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2784A1.txt
  • appeal concerning the other application, stating that ``[y]our appeal has been granted because it is not clear who was contacted initially for the missing documentation. . . .'' Because these two decisions based on the same circumstances are inconsistent, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Chichester School District, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania on May 10, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chichester's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2806A1.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Caddo Independent School District 5, Caddo, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Caddo's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2807A1.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Canute Independent School District 11, Canute, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Canute's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2808A1.txt
  • of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 20, 2000, a holiday, Soille San Diego's August 21, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Soille San Diego's appeal and direct SLD to review Soille San Diego's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California on September 15, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2818A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 6, 2000, by Lyman School District No. 42-1, Presho, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce Carrier,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2841A1.txt
  • requirement. The critical issue is when Sackets Harbor signed a contract with the service provider, not when it mailed the Form 471. Based on the record before us, Sackets Harbor signed a contract before anyone ever had an opportunity to submit a competitive bid for the project. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Sackets Harbor Central School District, Sackets Harbor, New York on May 5, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne B. Spaziani, Sackets Harbor Central School District 56, to Office of the Secretary, FCC, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2908A1.txt
  • a decision by the Universal Service Administrator to withhold funds allegedly due and payable to Ames under the schools and libraries support mechanisms. On July 31, 2000, Ames filed a Motion to Withdraw its appeal. The Division grants Ames' Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Ames' appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by the Ames Business & Learning Environments, Inc., Chandler, Arizona on July 31, 2000 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2909A1.txt
  • funding implementation deadline for the schools and libraries support mechanism so that it can receive the full amount of funding that it requested. Our review of the record, however, finds that Franklin has received all funds requested. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Franklin's Letter of Appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Franklin County School District, Carnesville, Georgia on December 30, 1999 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alicia A. Frey, Franklin County Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-42A1.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Denison Independent School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 99-#### -42 8¨È
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1034A1.txt
  • provided with an effective ``opportunity to make corrections'' to its FCC Form 471. In an effort to provide applicants with an effective opportunity to make such corrections after the issuance of RALs, SLD now includes both the monthly and annual pre-discount cost of funding requests in RALs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Marion County Public Schools, Ocala, Florida, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Marion's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1035A1.txt
  • signing its contracts and submitting its FCC Form 471. SLD should have been able to determine that Joliet complied with the 28-day posting rule. Accordingly, we remand Joliet's application and direct SLD to reconsider Joliet's application and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Joliet Grade School, Springfield, Illinois on June 8, 2000 IS GRANTED, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Danielle Gustafson, Joliet Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1036A1.txt
  • qualified existing contract, using other information provided, SLD could have reasonably determined the exact nature of the telecommunication services requested. We, therefore, remand Tomahawk's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and its attachments. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin filed on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lin Kautza, Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1037A1.txt
  • 17 would not have been reasonably apparent to SLD. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding and complying with all the relevant programs and procedures. 19 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington, on June 2, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clare Donahue, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1050A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 7, 2001, by Amherst Independent School District, Amherst, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael P. Nace, Amherst
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1051A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2001, by Harlandale Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Al Martin, Harlandale
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1052A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jefferson Independent School District, Jefferson, Texas on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mike Wood, Jefferson Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1053A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Montgomery County failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Montgomery County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Montgomery County School District, Montgomery, Alabama on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol A. Doucet, Ed.D, Montgomery County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1055A1.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because District 4 failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss its appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, Guilford, Maine on February 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael P. Cyr, Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1056A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 30, 2001, by Tyrone Area School District, Tyrone, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Victoria L. Aults, Tyrone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1090A1.txt
  • and accurately described their funding requests. Moreover, permitting applicants to amend their requests after the window closed could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. We therefore deny Old Town's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 2, 2000, by Old Town School District, Old Town Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard M. Beaudoin, Old Town School Department, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1091A1.txt
  • remanded SLD's decision, finding no support in the record for SLD's conclusion in light of the integration of eligible services with the rejected components. Here, SLD has not adequately justified its conclusion that this equipment should be deemed eligible. We therefore remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Philadelphia School District, on August 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Philadelphia's application, and if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above stated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1117A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Calhan failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Calhan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Calhan School District RJ-1, Calhan, Colorado on April 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sharon A. Olyejar, Calhan School District RJ-1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1118A1.txt
  • Form 471 on April 26, 1999, only 18 days after posting its FCC Form 470, demonstrates conclusively that it did not wait at least 28 days from the date of posting its service needs before entering into a service agreement and thus violated the competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 25, 2000 Request for Review filed by Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, Cynthiana, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from E. Susan Ellis, Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1119A1.txt
  • subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). We conclude that the particular facts of this case do rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, on July 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from John Lavelle, Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1120A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, ICS fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, on July 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louise Frangella, Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1121A1.txt
  • view of the merits of Wetzel's Request for Review might be different. Instead, SLD re-construed the request without giving Wetzel notice and opportunity to support its claim. This was an error which warrants granting Wetzel's Request for Review and remanding this matter to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 15, 2000, by Wetzel County School District, New Martinsville, West Virginia, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Wetzel's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1165A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Babylon failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Babylon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Babylon Union Free School District, North Babylon, New York on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney, North Babylon Union Free School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1179A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 24, 2001, by Beth Chana Elementary and High School for Girls, Beth Chana, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1180A1.txt
  • not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for waiver of our rules. Moreover, because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 12, 2001, by Ellenville Central School District, Ellenville, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Shari L. Dwyer,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1181A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1182A1.txt
  • Sayreville has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sayreville's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sayreville's initial request, Sayreville may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sayreville District Schools, Sayreville, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James Dougherty, Sayreville District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 20, 2001. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1202A1.txt
  • requests that the Commission order SLD to process its FCC Form 471. Based on the information before us, the USCN provided to SLD on Richland's FCC Form 471 matches the USCN indicated on Richland's FCC Form 470. Accordingly, we remand Richland's application to SLD for further determination. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Appeal filed August 17, 2000, by the Richland School District, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and we REMAND this matter to the Administrator for further processing consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1248A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bank Street's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bank Street's initial request, Bank Street may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bank Street School for Children, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Frank Nuara, Bank Street School for Children, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1249A1.txt
  • timely appeal with the Administrator. Consistent with this analysis we therefore remand this matter to SLD. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Olmstead's timely May 8, 2000 appeal, Olmstead may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 5, 2001, by Olmstead Falls City Schools, Olmstead Falls, Ohio, is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1251A1.txt
  • those employees to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Danbury fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie C. Schroeder, Danbury Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 25, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1252A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Dummerston fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Dummerston Elementary School, Dummerston, Vermont, on August 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Betsy Whittaker, Dummerston Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on August 24, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1253A1.txt
  • reconsidered its earlier denial and granted Weskan's request, mailing the decision to both Weskan and the service provider. Because the Division finds that the errors asserted by Weskan in its Request for Review have been corrected by SLD, the Division dismisses the Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Weskan Unified School District #242, Weskan, Kansas, on July 17, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Robinson, Weskan Unified School District #242, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1294A1.txt
  • Beach acknowledges that it received its April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter at the Long Beach, Washington address. Merely stating that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 30, 2001, by Ocean Beach School District No. 101, Long Beach, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1295A1.txt
  • an Administrator's Decision on Appeal on April 16, 2001 approving NJ State Library's appeal which requested corrections to the billed entity information on its SLD application 169943. Because SLD has approved NJ State Library appeal, we dismiss NJ State Library's Request for Review because it is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Jersey State Library, Trenton, New Jersey on June 30, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Kay, New Jersey State Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1328A1.txt
  • seek services not initially requested. This administrative practice enables SLD to apply our funding priority rules properly in situations where demand exceeds the annual funding cap. Thus, we do not believe the application should be modified to include a funding request for Internet connections from Merit Network. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by Genesee Intermediate School District on July 31, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Knox-Pipes, Genesee Intermediate School District, Flint, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1329A1.txt
  • files, HAFPL demonstrates that it failed to comply with a program mandate. By filing late, HAFPL ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline, HAFPL is subject to the funding priorities set forth in section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford, New Jersey, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sylvia Gidwani, Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford New Jersey, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1330A1.txt
  • the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. We find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we therefore, deny Powhatan's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elizabeth, Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000 (Waiver Request). 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1362A1.txt
  • Redondo Beach's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Redondo Beach from having to comply with our policies regarding competitive bidding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Redondo Beach Unified School District, Redondo Beach, California, on September 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Hosken, Redondo Beach Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1397A1.txt
  • the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. On April 27, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter granting discounts that are-with respect to all eligible services-identical to those requested in the application at issue here. Therefore, we dismiss as moot Fort Osage's Request for Review. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Osage R-1 School District, Independence, Missouri, on March 1, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Fort Osage R-1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1398A1.txt
  • because Missoula has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Missoula's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Missoula's request, Missoula may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 31, 2001 by Missoula Public Library, Missoula, Montana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bette Ammon, Missoula Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 31,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1399A1.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because ONC failed to file an appeal of the July 5, 2000 Administrator Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ONC's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, Stamford, New York on May 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rodger Oesterle, Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1404A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bnos Zion failed to file an appeal of the September 1, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bnos Zion's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnos Zion of Bobov School, Brooklyn, New York on May 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Jacov Zucker, Bnos Zion of Bobov School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1412A1.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Flint ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Flint is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(g). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Sheehan, Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-145A1.txt
  • Colchester has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Colchester's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Colchester's initial appeal, Colchester may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colchester School District, Colchester, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from John C. Gifford, Colchester School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 13, 2000.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-146A1.txt
  • other priorities. These arguments do not rise to the level of good cause necessary to justify waiving our rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Newburgh has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Newburgh's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on July 10, 2000, by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-147A1.txt
  • 10, 1997 and June 5, 1998. None of these requests were subject to existing, binding agreements as defined by the Commission's rules for Year 2 and were thus subject to the competitive bidding requirement. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Raytown's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 14, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Raytown Quality Schools, Raytown, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R.G. Kirby, Raytown Quality Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-148A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 9, 2000, by Sutton School, CNSU, Lyndonville, Vermont, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary Ann Riggie, Sutton School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1504A1.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Fair Lawn has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 22, 2000 by Fair Lawn Board of Education, Fair Lawn, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey, Deputy Chief Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce Watson, Fair Lawn Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1506A1.txt
  • 471 after the filing window closed. Altoona's exemption from the 28-day posting requirement did not relieve it of its obligation under program rules to file its Forms 471 prior to the close of the application window, and we uphold SLD's denial of funding on that grounds. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Altoona Area School District, Altoona, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dean G. Wilt, Altoona Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1507A1.txt
  • for SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Chabad has failed to demonstrate good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Chabad's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on April 9, 2001, by Chabad Hebrew School, Wayne, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Rabbi Michel Gurkov, Chabad Hebrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1508A1.txt
  • filed the instant Request for Review. The record shows that on September 15, 2000 and November 17, 2000, SLD issued Funding Commitment Decision Letters regarding requests for discounted services to Epiphany Lutheran School and Clara Muhammad School, respectively. Therefore, we dismiss Connect2's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., Staten Island, New York on January 24, 2000 and March 16, 2000, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letters from John Angelides, Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1509A1.txt
  • act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Under the circumstances in this case, we find no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the August 31, 2000, Request for Review filed by Evesham Township Public Schools, Marlton, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Frank Summers, Evesham Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 31, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1510A1.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Marshall ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Marshall is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Noel, Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1512A1.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Petoskey failed to file an appeal of the January 30, 2001 Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Petoskey's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petosky High School, Petoskey, Michigan on May 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gregory Czarnecki, Petosky High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1513A1.txt
  • competitive bidding in all situations except where an applicant has a pre-existing contract. Given that SLD had no evidence of such a contract, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Rib Lake for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the June 2, 2000 Request for Review filed by Rib Lake School District, Rib Lake, Wisconsin, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Anderson and Dan Boxx, Rib Lake School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1514A1.txt
  • for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form. Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on March 13, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1515A1.txt
  • thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we deny St. Marys' Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, on July 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph Petrick, St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1558A1.txt
  • by the consortium. Further, there is nothing in the record, including the copy of the agreement with DDS submitted to SLD by SEOVEC, that indicates to the contrary. Thus, the maintenance and support of this equipment were properly characterized as internal connections, and funding was correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 16, 2001 by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this application is remanded to SLD for further consideration of FRN 381223 consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1559A1.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 31, 2000, by St. Mary School, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary Campione, St. Mary School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1560A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 20, 2000, by West Shore Community College, Scottville, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Remittance Statement from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., dated May 15, 2000. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1571A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 19, 2001, by New Kensington-Arnold School District, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jim Jones, New Kensington-Arnold
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1572A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 27, 2001, by Sampson-Clinton Public Library, Clinton, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robin Hollingsworth, Sampson-Clinton Public Library,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1573A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Arizona Agribusiness failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Arizona Agribusiness's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Proctor Downing, Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1620A1.txt
  • for further review. In doing so, we make no determination as to whether the remaining members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts, beyond our finding that they should not be denied on grounds that Project Interconnect lacks authority to make the applications on their behalf. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Project Interconnect on October 16, 2000, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and these applications are remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from William
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1625A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 5, 2000, by Saint Thomas Aquinas School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephanie Nagle, Saint Thomas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1697A1.txt
  • appeal to SLD should be considered as timely. The record shows that SLD received the SLD Appeal Letter on September 13, 2000, 29 days after the Minimum Processing Standards Letter was mailed. Therefore, Praxis' appeal should be considered as timely and we remand this matter to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by the Praxis Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Jasper Jones, Praxis Institute,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1698A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 1, 2001, by Rice Independent School District, Rice, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Baer, Rice Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1699A1.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2001, by Scott County School District, Forest, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim Crotwell, Scott County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1700A1.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Torah's request for telecommunication services. On June 20, 2001, Torah filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Torah's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Torah's Request for Review. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Torah High School of Long Beach, Long Beach, New York, on June 20, 2001, IS GRANTED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1701A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Yeshivas Boyan failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Yeshivas Boyan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, Brooklyn, New York on January 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi David Endzweig, Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1718A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Pomona failed to file its appeals of the April 27, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Pomona's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pomona Unified School District, Pomona, California on July 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jaramillo, Pomona Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1721A1.txt
  • discretion, be permitted to issue identical determination letters to ``groups'' of the Consolidated Applicants, provided that the factual and substantive similarities between the applicants in a group are clearly explained. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letters of Appeal filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A LIST OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW REMANDED Applicant Application Number Abiline SDA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1724A1.txt
  • revisions to the standards for permissible service changes in the LA Unified Order, we remand these Requests for Review to the Administrator for reconsideration pursuant to the Commission's revised policies. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE GRANTED AND REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1725A1.txt
  • in posting Saint Jo's FCC Form 470 was solely attributable to USAC, we believe that a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirement is warranted in this case. Therefore, we remand Saint Jo's application to SLD for reprocessing and the issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Jo Independent School District, Saint Jo, Texas IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Saint Jo Independent School District's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-175A1.txt
  • the burden of carefully reviewing all documents sent to and received from SLD for accuracy. Accordingly, we conclude that East Side Union has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny East Side Union's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 11, 2000, by East Side Union High School District, San Jose, California, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1806A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 6, 2001, by Bristol Bay Borough School District, Naknek, Alaska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sherry Kern, Bristol
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1808A1.txt
  • Form 471. Based on this record, we affirm SLD's conclusion that the request was for a tariff service unsupported by a multi-year written contract, and that Goshen's failure to file a new FCC Form 470 in Funding Year 3 supporting the request warranted denial of the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goshen Community Schools, Goshen, Indiana, on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Steven Clason, Goshen Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated March 26, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1819A1.txt
  • state that ``the level of poverty [by which discounts are determined] shall be measured by the percentage of their student enrollment that is eligible for a free or reduced price lunch . . . .'' Thus, assuming BJA's allegations are accurate, they do not warrant granting relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baltimore Junior Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on April 9, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Paul Jean-Pierre, Baltimore Junior Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1820A1.txt
  • discount percentage for their application was below the funded discount percentage for Internal connections. Because Egg Harbor's appeal is appropriately denied on these grounds, we need not address the question of whether SLD's application of the 30% policy to Egg Harbor's application was consistent with program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Alfred Savio, Jr., Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1821A1.txt
  • SPIN for the remaining items of FRN 179922. Therefore, it was inappropriate for SLD to modify the SPIN to Extel for a funding commitment decision that did not contain ``Cat 5/6 wiring, long run portion.'' We find that the SPIN for FRN 179922 should remain Edumedia, Inc. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by LEAP Academy Charter Schools on August 7, 2000 is GRANTED and is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Clinton J. Boyd, LEAP Academy Charter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1822A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Salem failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Salem's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Salem School District, Salem, New Hampshire on June 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda L. MacDonald, Salem School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 18, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1823A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 26, 2001, by the Washington Parish School District, Franklinton, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rebecca Kemp, Washington
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1824A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Zeeland Public Schools, Zeeland, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephen Braunius, Zeeland Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1825A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 7, 1999, by ACCEPT Educational Collaborative, Framingham, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael J. Palladino, Accept Educational Collaborative, to Federal Communications Commission, dated April 7, 1999 (Request for Review). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1826A1.txt
  • However, we also note that FRN 368140 includes a $4.00 charge for an Unpublished Number, which is also an ineligible service. The total ineligible service cost is thus at least $147.50, or 30.5 percent of the $483.00 per month request. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bloomfield Community Schools, Bloomfield, Nebraska on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Marks, Bloomfield Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1827A1.txt
  • that on May 29, 2001, SLD issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal indicating that [South Carolina OIR's] appeal has brought forward persuasive information that [South Carolina OIR's] application should be data entered and considered for funding. Therefore, we dismiss South Carolina OIR's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by South Carolina Budget and Control Board Office of Information Resources, Columbia, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from R. Brian Johnson, South Carolina Budget and Control Board
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1877A1.txt
  • connections. Because Fort Wayne commingled its requests for discounts for telecommunications services and internal connections within a single funding request, SLD correctly placed the application into the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding in order to avoid treating Priority Two services as Priority One services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Wayne Community School District on July 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Fort Wayne Community School District to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1878A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gallatin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gallatin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gallatin R-V School District, Gallatin, Missouri on November 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeanette Sprague, Gallatin R-V School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1879A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Mamaroneck failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mamaroneck's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mamaroneck Union Free District, Mamaroneck, New York on December 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sarah Tate, Mamaroneck Union Free District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1881A1.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Chapel Hill has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver, filed June 22, 2000 by Chapel Hill Independent School District, Tyler, Texas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rita Simpson, Chapel Hill Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1883A1.txt
  • should have construed it as a service substitution request notwithstanding how the applicant captioned the pleading. As such, SLD should have reviewed the service substitution request on its merits. The Division's reversal of SLD's decision and remanding for further consideration of the request was therefore appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.113 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.113, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County Area Vocational - Technical School, Mercer, Pennsylvania, on June 1, 2000 is GRANTED for the reasons discussed herein, and REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration consisted with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1898A1.txt
  • the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Henry-Senachwine has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 23, 2000 by Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District #5, Henry, Illinois IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Privratsky, Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District 5, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 23,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1899A1.txt
  • made on behalf of Knox County Public Library, funding request number (FRN) 454127. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved funding for FRN 454127 and such funds were not revoked or suspended. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Intelenet's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bob G. Carnel, Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1900A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Monessen failed to file an appeal of the June 21, 2000 and June 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Monessen's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by School District of the City of Monessen, Monessen, Pennsylvania on January 22, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard Fantauzzi, School District of the City of Monessen, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1936A1.pdf
  • an example of an improper request the case of an eligible file server which is also ``built to provide storage functions to supplement personal computers on the network.'' That is precisely the case here, and accordingly, under the Universal Service Order, the entire request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 13, 2000 by Cleveland Municipal School District, seeking review of FRN 421840, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1943A1.txt
  • Novell has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Novell's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Novell's initial request, Novell may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Novell, Inc., Provo, Utah, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Teri Olsen, Novell, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2001. Letter from Schools and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1944A1.txt
  • Mater Dei's FCC Form 471 was filed outside the filing window. The only relief that Mater Dei could have sought was a waiver of the Commission's rules. Having reviewed the merits of Mater Dei's Waiver Request, we find no basis for waiver of our filing window rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey on March 8, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Giotta, Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1972A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by Fairland Public School District I-31, Fairland, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Melissa Bryant, Fairland
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1973A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by New Plymouth School District No. 372, New Plymouth, Idaho, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Vicki
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1974A1.txt
  • decision in White Sulphur Springs and the revised eligible services list, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Pinellas' application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Pinellas' use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pinellas County Schools on June 1, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Pinellas' funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1975A1.txt
  • before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. The Division, therefore, denies Preston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Preston Town County Library, on April 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Patton, Preston Town County Library, Hot Springs, Montana, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1976A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Saint Bede's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Saint Bede's initial request, Saint Bede may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Bede The Venerable, Holland, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Mary Boland, Saint Bede The Venerable, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1977A1.txt
  • deadline is warranted. We therefore grant WASD's Waiver Request. We direct SLD to process WASD's FCC Form 471 as timely filed, and if otherwise appropriate, to issue an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. However, we make no determination as to whether WASD is ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Allegheny School District, Imperial, Pennsylvania on June 30, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and WASD's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1980A1.txt
  • it is not ``necessary to transport information all the way to individual classrooms.'' In sum, network monitoring is not an eligible service under program rules. Thus, SLD properly applied the 30% rule in denying Little River's funding request. We, therefore, deny Little River's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Little River Unified School District 444, Little River, Kansas, on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Milt Dougherty, Little River Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1981A1.txt
  • will grant the appeal so long as the applicant points out the mistake, and demonstrates how SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand Brockton's application for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 22, 2000, Request for Review filed by Brockton Public Schools, Brockton, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Brockton's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-200A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Atlantic County failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Atlantic County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Atlantic County Library System, Mays Landing, New Jersey on December 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alyce J. Bowers, Atlantic County Library System, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2016A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, New Paltz fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by New Paltz Central School District, New Paltz, New York, on February 29, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Deborah Brush, New Paltz Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2017A1.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Painesville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Painesville City Schools, Painesville, Ohio, on February 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James R. Fodor, Painesville City Local Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2018A1.txt
  • funded so long as the ineligible portion is less than 30% of the total. We therefore remand to SLD to determine, in light of Richland Parish's information on appeal and consistent with this decision, what portion of the request is ineligible and to process the request appropriately. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Richland Parish School District, Rayville, Louisiana, on May 10, 2000 is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2019A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, St. Ignatius Loyola fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Ignatius Loyola Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on September 27, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeffrey R. Sindler, Saint Ignatius Loyola Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-201A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Clearview failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Clearview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Clearview Local School District, Lorain, Ohio on December 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kent R. Zeman, Clearview Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2020A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Stephen/Argyle fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Stephen/Argyle Central School District, Stephen, Minnesota, on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie K. Stark, Stephen/Argyle Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2021A1.txt
  • if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Wishek's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91., 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wishek Public School, Wishek, North Dakota, on March 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brian Duchscherer, Wishek Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 16, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2022A1.txt
  • 19, 2000. Yet it is incumbent upon applicants to allow sufficient time to submit their FCC Forms 470, complete the 28-day competitive bidding period, and then submit their FCC Forms 471 within the filing window. For these reasons, the Division denies Yeshiva of Brooklyn's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York, on April 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Heshy Arem, Yeshiva of Brooklyn, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 10, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2023A1.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Winchendon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Winchendon School, Winchendon, Massachusetts, on June 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from C. Jackson Blair, the Winchendon School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2024A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Ballard fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Ballard Community School District, Huxley, Iowa, on February 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Connie Marker, Ballard Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2025A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Elgin fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Elgin Independent School District, Elgin, Texas, on November 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Allbright, Elgin Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2026A1.txt
  • and cites that correct Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. Because this procedure is applicable here, we find that SLD should have granted the appeal. We therefore reverse and remand Service Co-op's application for further consideration of FRN 171379 in light of Form 470 USCN 390330000120972. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 14, 2000 by Reg 6 & 8 Sw/Ctrl/W Srvc Co-op, Marshall, Minnesota, is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2027A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Renaissance fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Renaissance Charter School, Moscow, Idaho on March 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Kampenhout, Renaissance Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 20, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2028A1.txt
  • request. We are informed by SLD personnel that on March 28, 2001, SLD made the SPIN-change which Cleveland Municipal is seeking here. Because the Division finds that Cleveland Municipal has already received the relief that it is requesting, Cleveland Municipal's Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Cleveland Municipal School District on November 13, 2000, seeking review of FRN 418921, is DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-202A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 12, 2000, by Granville Public Schools, Granville, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Judith Ann Deutsch, Granville
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2037A1.txt
  • RAL on August 23, 1999. Therefore, SLD received the request for corrections 10 days after Hysham received the RAL. As a result, we find that Hysham's request for corrections to the RAL was timely because the corrections were received within two weeks of receipt of the RAL. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hysham Public Schools on August 3, 2000, IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2038A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by East Greenbush Central Schools, East Greenbush, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Donn F.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-203A1.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: January 26, 2001 Released: January 29, 2001 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 20, 2000, by Leon County Schools, Tallahassee, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William D. Piotrowski, Leon County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-204A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 28, 2000, by Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Winston E.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-205A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 13, 2000, by Pluralistic School, Santa Monica, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathleen Lenihan, Pluralistic School, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2063A1.txt
  • "in window" application. On February 2, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter to SEED School regarding the requests for discounts at issue in this Request for Review. Thus, upon review of the record, we find it is appropriate to dismiss SEED School's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by SEED School, Washington, DC on April 21, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Thomas J. Downey, SEED School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 21, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2065A1.txt
  • SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we remand to SLD for a determination of whether DeKalb had a pre-existing contract governing the FRNs at issue, and is eligible for discounts for those FRNs under program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 22, 2000, by DeKalb County School System, Decatur, Georgia, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review DeKalb's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-206A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Solon failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Solon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Solon City Schools, Solon, Ohio on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kirk B. Miller, Solon City Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-207A1.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because neither Scanlon or MetroCon filed an appeal of the February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss MetroCon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by MetroCon Communications, New York, New York on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Al Garcia, MetroCon Communications, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2085A1.txt
  • Letter, whether because of SLD's error or the applicant's, SLD will correct the SPIN upon written request and verification. Here, a written request was made, and we therefore remand this application to SLD to obtain verification and process the SPIN correction in accordance with its procedures. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Trussville Public Library, Birmingham, Alabama, on December 14, 1999, IS GRANTED, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Moody,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2086A1.txt
  • Chimes has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Chimes' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Chimes' initial appeal, Chimes may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chimes School, Baltimore, Marlyand, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Martin Lampner, Chimes School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000. See Letter from Martin Lampner,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2087A1.txt
  • for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, St. Jean Vianney fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Jean Vianney School, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 31, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patrice A. Robinson, St. Jean Vianney School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2097A1.txt
  • policies as well as program rules. Here, the necessity of replacing a sick employee skilled in the application process for the schools and libraries program provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Orleans Public Schools, New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 25, 2001, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alonzo R. Luce, New Orleans Public Schools, to Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2098A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2129A1.txt
  • provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. Because the record demonstrates that Bnos Yaakov received mail from SLD at the same address listed in the more detailed letter, we find no reason to deviate from this standard. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 28, 2000, by Congregation Bnos Yaakov, Lakewood, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, Congregation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-212A1.txt
  • (internal connections) being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand NAFC's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider NAFC's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by NAFC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on November 1, 1999 to reconsider the dismissal of the Appeal it filed on April 26, 2000 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Appeal filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2130A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because DeKalb failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss DeKalb's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by DeKalb Independent School District, DeKalb, Texas on September 4, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Timothy Williams, DeKalb Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 4, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2131A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Estelline failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Estelline's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Estelline School District 28-2, Estelline, South Dakota on August 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kristina Atyeo, Estelline School District 28-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2137A1.txt
  • for a retroactive waiver of the 30-day appeal deadline for Funding Year 1 applicants who filed untimely appeals, E-Rate Central's request that we also authorize new appeal funding procedures for these applicants is moot. We therefore dismiss this part of the Request for Waiver as well. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed E-Rate Central, Plandome, New York, on August 12, 1999, is DENIED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 12, 1999 (Request for Waiver).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-213A1.txt
  • that the SLD correctly determined that only 72 of Soille's students were eligible for the national school lunch program under the federal income eligibility guidelines. Thus, SLD properly found Soille eligible for a 50 percent discount for internal connections, and we find no merit in Solle's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 9, 2000 by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2185A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Watonwan fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Watonwan County Library, St. James, Minnesota, on July 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cheryl Bjoin, Watonwan County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2219A1.txt
  • received over 36,000 applications. It is impractical, if not impossible, for SLD to review each application and notify applicants of errors prior to the close of the filing window. The Division, therefore, finds that the applicant violated the 28-day waiting period and denies Washington's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David L. Bringman, Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2226A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 11, 2001, by City of Cameron, Cameron, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Janet Sheguit, City of Cameron,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2227A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Sealy failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sealy's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sealy Independent School District, Sealy, Texas on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosa Ojeda, Sealy Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2228A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 7, 2001, by Shelby City Schools, Shelby, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Keith Rittenhouse, Shelby City Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2229A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Cecelia failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Cecelia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Cecelia School, Clearwater, Florida on September 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ellen Patrick, St. Cecelia School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 12, 2001. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2230A1.txt
  • through the Tech Centers, had actual authority to act on behalf of the school districts listed in the consortium. We, therefore, remand Clackamas' application to SLD for further fact-finding. However, we make no determination has to whether any members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, on October 13, 2000, IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2233A1.txt
  • weeks before the filing window deadline. Furthermore, SLD provides alternative means for applicants to obtain forms, including having forms mailed to the applicants. Based on these facts, South Barber has failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would warrant treating South Barber differently by granting it a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 23, 2000 by South Barber Unified School District 255, Kiowa, Kansas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Bailey, South Barber Unified School District 255, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 23, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2241A1.txt
  • after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Haslett's request for funding and we therefore deny Haslett's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, on February 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Martell, Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2275A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Sacred Heart failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sacred Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sacred Heart Elementary School, San Francisco, California on September 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Savita Sahi, Sacred Heart Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2276A1.txt
  • 127047 because the record shows that Sperry failed to complete this application. Because there is no completed FCC Form 471 for application number 127045, and because Sperry has failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would so necessitate, a waiver of the filing window is not warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Sperry Public Schools, Sperry, Oklahoma, on October 7, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jobe, Sperry Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 7, 1999 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2290A1.txt
  • that SLD could have determined the city name of the billed entity. As a result, in these particular circumstances, we do not believe that the omission of the city of the billed entity in Block 1, item 4a should have prevented SLD from data entering AEPPR's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eduardo Delgado, Asociacion
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2292A1.txt
  • including the 28-day competitive bidding requirements. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. The Division, therefore, denies NYMA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York Military Academy, Hudson, New York, on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A FUNDING YEAR 2 DATE EVENT January 7, 1999 File FCC Form 470 FUNDING
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2293A1.txt
  • Because St. Francis de Sales failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Francis de Sales' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Francis de Sales School, Houston, Texas on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cathy Minar, St. Francis de Sales School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2328A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bear Lake fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bear Lake County Library District, Montpelier, Idaho, on November 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Nate, Bear Lake County Library District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2329A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Mississippi DOE failed to file an appeal of the July 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mississippi DOE's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mississippi Department of Education, Mississippi DOE, Mississippi on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Amory School District, Greenwood Springs, MS; Coahoma County School District, Clarksdale, MS; Lee County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2330A1.txt
  • website was incorrect. Thus, we find that SLD's posting of an incorrect zip code contributed to the untimely filing by West Las Vegas of its FCC Form 471. We therefore conclude that West Las Vegas has demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Las Vegas Schools, Las Vegas, New Mexico, on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process West Las Vegas's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2331A1.txt
  • the requests in Henry County's FCC Form 471 only posted a request for telecommunications services. The FRN at issue, FRN 276939, requests discounted internal connections. Because Henry County failed to post the service for which it seeks discounts, it did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henry County Board of Education, Abbeville, Alabama, on October 25, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Neil Dodson, Henry County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2332A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Midland fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Midland School District, Pleasant Plains, Arkansas, on February 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim LaRue, Midland School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2333A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Montville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Montville Township Public Schools, Montville, New Jersey, on March 23, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dominic J. Butler, Montville Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2362A1.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Center SD's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Center SD's initial appeal, it may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center School District, Kansas City, Missouri, on July 31, 2000 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bruce Rehmer, Center School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2372A1.txt
  • Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Elkhart has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed July 10, 2000 by Elkhart Community Schools, Elkhart, Indiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Woods, Elkhart Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2373A1.txt
  • Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Powell has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 3, 2000 by Powell County High School, Deer Lodge, Montana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph A. Brott, Powell County High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2398A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Belt Schools failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Belt Schools' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Belt Schools, Great Falls, Montana on September 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tom Glover, Belt Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2001. Letter from Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2399A1.txt
  • window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Garfield has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed April 17, 2000 by Garfield School District, Garfield, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Raymond Hryczyk, Garfield School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2400A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 28, 2001, by Hazelwood School District, Florissant, Missouri, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert J. Wukitsch, Hazelwood School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2401A1.txt
  • SLD should have notified Lettie Jensen of the signature deficiency in the form in time for Lettie Jensen to submit an in-window FCC Form 471 that complied with the competitive bidding rules. We therefore further find that good cause exists to grant Lettie Jensen's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lettie W. Jensen Library, Amherst, Wisconsin, on February 26, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and Lettie Jensen's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2422A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Elizabeth failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Elizabeth's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Elizabeth Board of Education, Elizabeth, New Jersey on September 27, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph Pellegrino, Elizabeth Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2423A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Leon County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Leon County's initial request, Leon County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Leon County Schools, Tallahassee, Florida, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from William D. Piotrowski, Leon County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 27, 2001. Leon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2424A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Mid-Peninsula failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mid-Peninsula's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mid-Peninsula Library Cooperative, Kingsford, Michigan on September 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Brewer, Mid-Peninsula Library Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 17, 2001. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2453A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 9, 2001, by Deep River-Millersburg Community School District, Millersburg, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Carol Montz, Deep
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2454A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because McClave failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss McClave's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by McClave School District RE-2, McClave, Colorado on September 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry M. Weber, McClave School District RE-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2455A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Saint Patrick failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Saint Patrick's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Patrick School, Stoneham, Massachusetts on October 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cecilia Phelan, Saint Patrick School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9, 2001. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2456A1.txt
  • Finally, SLD correctly determined that MHT was not eligible for internal connections. In Funding Year 3, internal connections were funded for schools and libraries with at least an 82% discount rate. MHT was entitled to only an 80% discount rate. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 29, 2001, by the Most Holy Trinity School, Brooklyn, New York is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Philip McHugh, Most Holy Trinity School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 22, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2457A1.txt
  • for cellular phone service should be granted. Aside from finding that cellular phone service requests are requests for basic voice telephone service, entitled to a separate necessary resources review, we offer no opinion as to whether the particular cellular requests at issue here are entitled to funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by United Talmudical Academy is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eugene Sander, United Talmudical
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-24A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Columbia failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Columbia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Columbia Public Library, Columbia, Pennsylvania on October 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert V. McCarthy, Columbia Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2518A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 17, 2001, by Rochester Public Schools, Rochester, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Daniel Cincoski, Rochester Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2519A1.txt
  • the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. Specifically, Bibb requests that the invoices be considered as timely filed. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Bibb's request to waive the invoice deadline. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Bibb's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2000, by Bibb County Public Schools, Macon, Georgia IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Julie K. Christopher, Bibb County Public Schools, Macon, Georgia, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2520A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts in its name. Here, East Brunswick fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find an insufficient basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by East Brunswick Public Schools, East Brunswick, New Jersey, on March 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jamie Savedoff, East Brunswick Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2521A1.txt
  • for Reviews with the Administrator. The Commission's rules regarding appeals of SLD decisions do not contemplate simultaneous requests to the Commission and the Administrator. In this case, because St. Mary Magdalen filed concurrent appeals, we dismiss St. Mary Magdalen's Requests for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by St. Mary Magdalen, Brentwood, Missouri, on May 19, 1999, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Chris Rosenthal, St. Mary Magdalen, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2522A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bellevue fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bellevue Public Library, Bellevue, Iowa, on February 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marian L. Meyer, Bellevue Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2523A1.txt
  • access service and internal connections within a single funding request, SLD correctly placed the entire funding request into the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding. Because Elmont is not entitled to internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3, we must deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Elmont Public Library, Elmont, New York, on February 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Frank Marino, Elmont Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2524A1.txt
  • Commitment Decision Letter was August 7, 2001 and because Grandview filed an appeal of the SLD decision on August 27, 2001, we find that SLD incorrectly denied Grandview's appeal as untimely. Accordingly, we grant Grandview's Request for Review and direct SLD to review Grandview's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Grandview Independent School District, Grandview, Texas on September 4, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn Whitaker, Grandview Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2525A1.txt
  • Year 3 was only 58% based on the National School Lunch Program discount matrix. Due to demand in Funding Year 3, only schools eligible for an 82% discount or higher received discounts for internal connections. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly denied funding for the entire request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mankato Area Public Schools, Mankato, Minnesota, on March 12, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Douglas Johnson, Mankato Area Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 12, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2526A1.txt
  • Therefore, we conclude that, under SLD's applicable Funding Year 3 review procedures, it correctly placed FRN 408532 in the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding. Because North East is not eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3, we affirm SLD's denial of funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North East Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, on April 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Emilienburg, North East Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2527A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Forest District fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Forest Municipal School District, Forest, Mississippi, on August 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Ed Leonard, Forest Municipal School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2528A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Lake Eola fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lake Eola Charter School, Orlando, Florida, on November 8, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sharon Morell, Lake Eola Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 8, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2531A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Paso Robles' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Paso Robles' initial request, Paso Robles may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Paso Robles Public Schools, Paso Robles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Laurie Crowe, Paso Robles Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2535A1.txt
  • a rubber stamp signature is a binding act that signifies the intent of the party to be bound by the program rules. Based on this analysis, an original stamped signature meets the minimum processing standard for an original ink signature. We therefore grant its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 31, 2000 by Caribou Regional Technology Center, Caribou, Maine IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to USAC for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn McNeal, Caribou Regional Technology Center, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2536A1.txt
  • failure to timely file its FCC Form 471 within the filing window. The record demonstrates that SLD's actions led New Hartford to file an out of window FCC Form 471. We find it appropriate to waive the filing window deadline for Funding Year 1 for New Hartford. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 10, 2000 by New Hartford Central School District, New Hartford, New York IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to USAC for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Dieso, New Hartford Central
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2537A1.txt
  • the required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that Trico has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 30, 2000 by Trico Community Unit District #176, Campbell Hill, Illinois IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dennis Smith, Trico Community Unit School District #176, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2575A1.txt
  • support application process in an efficient and effective manner, including procedures for the review of applications and the implementation of the Commission's rules of priority. We find that, for the reasons discussed above, SLD's operating procedure for mixed priority requests was a reasonable exercise of its authority. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Grand School - SAD #14, Danforth, Maine, on March 16, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from William T. Dobbins, East Grand School - SAD #14, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2576A1.txt
  • 338410 should therefore be fully funded. However, the fact that it has a technology plan now, does not satisfy the program requirement that Franklin have a technology plan in place at the time of its application. Therefore, we find no basis for granting Franklin's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Franklin Public Schools, Franklin, Wisconsin, on May 7, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kaye Hernon, Franklin Public School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 7, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2577A1.txt
  • connections request. As noted above, in Funding Year 3, funding of discounted internal connections was available only for schools with discount rates of 82% or higher. Because Karval had a discount rate of only 70%, it was not eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Karval School District RE 23, Karval, Colorado, on March 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ashley A. Anderson, Karval School District RE 23, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2578A1.txt
  • router and CSU/DSU, SLD correctly classified the funding request as internal connections. In Funding Year 3, only applicants with an 82% discount or higher received internal connections. Merrimack was entitled to a 44% discount under the discount matrix. We therefore conclude that FRN 338072 was correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Merrimack Valley Library Consortium, Andover, Massachusetts, on February 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bill B. Manson, Merrimack Valley Library Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-25A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 10, 2000, by Lake Havasu Unified School District, Lake Havasu City, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Barbara
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2638A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Tariff Affiliates failed to file an appeal of the October 13, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Tariff Affiliates' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tariff Affiliates, Inc., Fairport, New York on June 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Fish, Tariff Affiliates, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 11, 2001. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2639A1.txt
  • It is well established law that the absence of official record of an event is the evidence of the non-occurrence of the event. The proffered copy of the April 30, 2001 letter, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that an appeal was timely filed with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Whitehall District Schools, Whitehall, Michigan on August 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Decker, Whitehall District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16, 2001. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2640A1.txt
  • SLD processed applications with 14 or more digits. Our decision today does not prohibit SLD from establishing minimum processing standards relating to FCC Form 470 Application Numbers in the future. Our decision is directed only at the consistent treatment of applications under the minimum processing standards. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pediatric Library, Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital Ballard Community School District, Cleveland, Ohio, on June 21, 2000 IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED for further processing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by St. John the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2641A1.txt
  • should therefore have been considered. Accordingly, we remand the application to SLD to address the eligibility of FRN 437000 in light of the information submitted on appeal. In doing so, we make no determination as to whether FRN 437000 seeks support for an eligible product or service. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pope Blanche Elementary School, Waimanalo, Hawaii, filed on April 25, 2001, IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Les Goto,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2642A1.txt
  • Lakeshore has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to cover for the administrative facilitator's absence to minimize or avoid the late filing. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Lakeshore's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lakeshore Public Academy, Hart, Michigan on October 9, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2643A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Mary O'Brien failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mary O'Brien's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mary C. O'Brien Accomodation School District, Florence, Arizona on September 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jack W. Harmon, Mary C. O'Brien Accomodation School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2644A1.txt
  • Wapanucka has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Wapanucka's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Wapanucka's initial request, Wapanucka may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wapanucka Public Schools, Wapanucka, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Max Rowland, Wapanucka Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 24, 2001 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2646A1.txt
  • require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Bais Yaakov's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bais Yaakov High School of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri on September 17, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2647A1.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Louisville failed to file an appeal of the July 26, 2001 Funding Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Louisville's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Louisville Public Library, Louisville, Nebraska on October 9, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ruth Ann Hlavac, Louisville Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2648A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Northeastern failed to file an appeal of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Northeastern's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19, Archbald, Pennsylvania on January 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brian R. Dolan, Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2649A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 3, 2000, by St. Raymond Regional School, Villas, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Harry J. Rock, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 3, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2692A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bethlehem Area's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bethlehem Area's initial request, Bethlehem Area may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bethlehem Area School District, Bethlehem Area, Pennsylvania, on October 15, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Scott Garrigan, Bethlehem Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2694A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Lincoln's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and Request for Waiver filed on September 20, 2001, by Lincoln Elementary School District No. 27, Lincoln, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Ann Gleason and Dr. Robert E. Kidd,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2696A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Pinellas's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and the Request for Waiver filed on September 19, 2000, by Pinellas County Schools, Largo, Florida ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Shannon Eddinger, Pinellas County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2697A1.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Potter Valley's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and the Request for Waiver filed on October 9, 2001, by Potter Valley Community Unified School District, Potter Valley, California ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gail Albin, Potter Valley Community Unified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2698A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 22, 2000, by Somerton School District No. 11, Somerton, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert W. Cassidy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2699A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 12, 2000, by Somerton School District No. 11, Somerton, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert W. Cassidy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-26A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lakeview failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lakeview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lakeview Community Schools, Columbus, Nebraska on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kurt Harrison, Lakeview Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2700A1.txt
  • to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. Here, Trinity fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Trinity Area School District, Washington, Pennsylvania, on February 22, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James R. Shargots, Trinity Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2701A1.txt
  • application numbers 244469 and 244568, Washington Community may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. For these reasons, with respect to SLD application numbers 244469 and 244568, we dismiss Washington Community's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington Community School District, Washington, Iowa, on September 24, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN PART and IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kevin Posekany,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2706A1.txt
  • that correct FCC Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. Because this procedure is applicable here, we find that SLD should have reviewed the funding requests in light of the new FCC Form 470 USCN numbers. We therefore reverse and remand the pending applications for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 9, 2000 by Wayland Free Library, Wayland, New York, IS GRANTED and this application IS REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed on July 12, 2000 by South
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2749A1.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Prospect's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 2, 2000, by Prospect School District 59, Prospect, Oregon and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2750A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Winnebago fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its applications. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Winnebago Public Schools, Winnebago, Nebraska on June 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Raymond Girard, Winnebago Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 16, 2000 (Waiver Request). Id. 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2766A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 27, 2001, by Blessed Sacrament - St. Gabriel High School, New Rochelle, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Edward Sullivan, Blessed Sacrament - St. Gabriel High School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2767A1.txt
  • because Washington has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Washington's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Washington's request, it may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 9, 2001 by Washington County Public Schools, Abingdon, Virginia, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Luker, Washington County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2768A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 20, 2001, by Waukegan Public Schools, Waukegan, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judith M. Green, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 20, 2001 (Request for Review). See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2769A1.txt
  • agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, West Jasper fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Jasper School District, Bay Springs, Mississippi, on May 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Mary Walters and George Duke, West Jasper School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2770A1.txt
  • for internal connections. In Funding Year 3, internal connections were funded for schools and libraries with at least an 82% discount rate. The record demonstrates that Boone was entitled to only a 75% discount rate based on the discount matrix. We therefore deny Boone's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 19, 2000, by Boone County School District, Madison, West Virginia is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary D. Sumpter, Boone County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 19, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2771A1.txt
  • real-time voice or video over IP (VoIP), if otherwise eligible, are eligible for discount.'' Because this eligibility standard was not in place at the time of SLD's prior decision, we remand the application to SLD for review of FRN 221270 consistent with the revised eligible services list. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Everett School District #2 on May 22, 2000 is GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further action. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ken Toyn, Everett School District No. 2, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2795A1.txt
  • Children's Home's Appeal to SLD state that the software is ``required'' for the servers, and that it consists of operational software including ``NT Server'' and ``Web Server.'' Based on this documentation, we find that the software is eligible for discounts. We therefore grant the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Children's Home Society, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on March 21, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2796A1.txt
  • the standards articulated in Naperville. Although Item 22, Block 5, was a new information request in Funding Year 3, Item 1 of Block 1, the Billed Entity, was not new. Thus, the first requirement of Naperville is not satisfied. Accordingly, we affirm SLD's rejection of the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Crawford County Public Library, English, Indiana, on August 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lloyd A. Hamlin, King and Queen County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2797A1.txt
  • the entire request could have been avoided by submitting two separate funding requests, one for the Priority One services, and the second for the Priority Two services. Through that method, Worcester can, in the future, obtain virtually all of the benefit of choosing the more economical solution. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Worcester Public Schools, Worcester, New York, on March 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John F. Burke, Worcester Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2798A1.txt
  • year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures."). 21242 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2798 within the window. Here, Peru Central fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Peru Central School, Peru, New York, on June 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert 0 Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau 21243
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-27A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Matawan-Aberdeen failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Matawan-Aberdeen's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, Matawan, New Jersey on November 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland R. Pare, Ed.D, Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2800A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Bnos Zion fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnos Zion of Bobov, Inc., Brooklyn, New York October 31, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2801A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Buffalo fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo Public Library, Buffalo, Oklahoma on October 10, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2802A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Colusa fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Colusa Unified School District, Colusa, California September 24, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2803A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Edgerton fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Edgerton Public School, Edgerton, Minnesota, on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from LeRoy Domagala, Edgerton Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2804A1.txt
  • rule. Because Helena provides documentation indicating that SLD would have received the application before the end of the filing window for Funding Year 2 if the postal service had delivered it to the correct address, we find that good cause exists to grant Helena's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Helena Township Public Library, Alden, Michigan on July 31, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and Helena's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2805A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Johnson fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Johnson Elementary School, Johnson, Vermont on October 15, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2806A1.txt
  • the 28 days required by the Commission's rule before signing contracts and submitting FCC Form 471s. Because there was evidence within the applications to support the pending Requests for Review, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand the two pending applications for further consideration. 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 22 Nashua Request for Review at 2; Hudson Request for Review at 2. 23 Nashua Request for Review at 2, attach. 3b. 24 FCC Form 470, Nashua Public Library, filed December 21, 1999, at 1 (indicating allowable contract date of December 18, 2000). 25 Hudson Request for Review at 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2807A1.txt
  • a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Because Sacramento provides evidence that it postmarked its application within the filing window, we find that good cause exists to grant Sacramento's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento, California on August 3, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Sacramento's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2808A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sargent School District RE-33J, Monte Vista, Colorado, on March 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronna Cochran, Sargent School District RE-33J, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2809A1.txt
  • procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, South Kingstown fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by South Kingstown Public Library, Peace Dale, Rhode Island, on July 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Connie Lachowicz, South Kingstown Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2810A1.txt
  • require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Starr King-Edison has failed to demonstrate good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief, and therefore, we deny Starr King-Edison's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Starr King-Edison Academy, Long Beach, California on October 18, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-285A1.txt
  • specify what additional information was required for the application. We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the record does not show that SLD adequately communicated the nature of the requested information to St. Stanislaus. Accordingly, we remand St. Stanislaus' application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the St. Stanislaus Kostka School, Chicago, Illinois on May 15, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review St. Stanislaus' funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2875A1.txt
  • place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. Here, Netherlands Christian fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Netherlands Reformed Christian School, Pompton Plains, New Jersey, on September 4, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John W. Van Der Brink, Netherlands Reformed Christian School, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2877A1.txt
  • Saranac has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Saranac's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Saranac's initial request, Saranac may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saranac Central School, Saranac, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Larry Garrow, Saranac Central School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 26, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-28A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 17, 2000, by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Perry W. Polk,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2953A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Algonquin Regional High School, Northborough, Massachusetts, on October 3, 2001, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Melican, Algonquin Regional High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 3, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2954A1.txt
  • deny Taylor County's applications for funding requested by SLD application numbers 241393, 241462, 245426 and 245519, we dismiss that request without further consideration because Taylor County failed to seek review of the Administrator's decisions from the Commission within the 30 day period set forth in our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Taylor County Board of Education, Campbellsville, Kentucky on September 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda E. Beal, Taylor County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2955A1.txt
  • Only applicants with a discount rate of 82% or higher were eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3. BECPL had a discount rate of only 60%. Because BECPL is not eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3, we affirm SLD's denial of funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie County Public Library, Buffalo, New York, on March 27, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Buffalo
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2956A1.txt
  • the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Finley-Sharon has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 7, 2000 by Finley-Sharon Public School, Finley, North Dakota IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lee E. Kelm, Finley-Sharon Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2957A1.txt
  • Year 3 FCC Form 471 be considered as timely filed. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved funding for Hayti's Funding Year 3 application, and such funds were not revoked or suspended. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Hayti's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 29, 2000 by Hayti School District, Hayti, Missouri, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sue Reynolds, Hayti School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 29, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2958A1.txt
  • the policy adopted in Funding Year 3 was reasonable. Further, because Kansas filed the pending application in Funding Year 3, it is properly subject to the procedures in place for Funding Year 3. We therefore decline to reverse SLD based on its adoption of a new procedure. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Kansas Public Schools, Kansas, Oklahoma, on March 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ingersoll, Kansas Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 2, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2959A1.txt
  • deviation from Commission rules regarding the discount level received by participants in the universal service mechanism for schools and libraries. Thus, to the extent Lake County seeks a waiver of our rules, Lake County has failed to meet its burden, and thus such request is also denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Lake County School District, Tavares, Florida, February 9, 2001, February 23, 2001, March 20, 2001 and April 14, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Coggshall, Lake County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2960A1.txt
  • is inadmissible on appeal to correct data included in the original application. Here, as noted above, FRN 322733 specified that it was seeking tariffed services not supported by a contract. Thus, evidence to demonstrate that the service is supported by a contract is not admissible on appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Newton Community School District, Newton, Iowa, on March 6, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Pederson, Newton Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2961A1.txt
  • to its Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471. However, the record reflects that the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company provided discounts to Nogales/Santa Cruz for its Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471. We therefore dismiss Nogales/Santa Cruz's Waiver Request as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Nogales/Santa Cruz County Public Library, Nogales, Arizona, on July 25, 2000, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Suzanne Haddock, Nogales/Santa Cruz County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2962A1.txt
  • timely and complete requests for discounts on its behalf. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline in these circumstances and, therefore, we deny Parrottsville's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Parrottsville Community Library, Parrottsville, Tennessee, June 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judy Myers, Parrottsville Community Library, Parrottsville, Tennessee, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 16, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2963A1.txt
  • and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Smackover fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Smackover Public Schools, Smackover, Arkansas, on July 18, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leland Watts, Smackover Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 18, 2000 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2964A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 11, 2001, by Fairhill School, Dallas, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Wade Mercer, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11, 2001 (Request for Review). See id.; Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2966A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Island Park's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Island Park's initial request, Island Park may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Island Park Library Friends, Inc., Macks Inn, Idaho, on August 13, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Genevieve Prahasto, Island Park Library Friends, Inc., to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2967A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Orange City Christian School, Orange City, Iowa, on May 7, 2001, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paula Ribbens, Orange City Christian School to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 7,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2968A1.txt
  • Knowlton has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Knowlton's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Knowlton's initial request, Knowlton may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Knowlton Township Board of Education, Delaware, New Jersey, on July 30, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eva Kunz, Knowlton Township Board of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2978A1.txt
  • had postmarked their FCC Forms 471 at least three days before the filing window deadline, or that they mailed the forms via guaranteed overnight courier at least one day before the deadline, will be deemed to have filed their FCC Forms 471 within the filing window. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the following Waiver Requests ARE REMANDED TO SLD for further review consistent with this opinion: Hardee County School Board, Wauchula, Florida, filed August 28, 2000; Goldennet Educational Technology Alliance, Bakersfield, California, filed June 2, 2000; St. Michael Elementary School, Hastings, Nebraska, filed July 18, 2000; Concordia Parish
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-29A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 16, 2000, by New Brighton Area School District, New Brighton, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce P.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-30A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because New Hampshire School failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Hampshire School's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53, Pembroke, New Hampshire on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary I. Rubega, New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-314A1.txt
  • applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Given Yeshiva's failure to certify the Form 471 subsequent to the required posting period, SLD properly denied the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, Brooklyn, New York, filed April 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alter Obermeister, Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 11, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-315A1.txt
  • was for tariffed services, such services must be re-bid every year because they do not fall under the limited exemptions from competitive bidding. Therefore, because Thomas Crane did not seek competitive bids for Funding Year 2, we find that SLD correctly denied Thomas Crane's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 10, 2000 Request for Review filed by Thomas Crane Public Library, Quincy, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jody Parsley, Thomas Crane Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-316A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Ashby's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 4, 2001, by Ashby Public Schools, Ashby, Minnesota IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Renee Melby, Ashby Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 4, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-317A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 1, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-318A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 13, 2000, by Daingerfield-Lone Star Independent School District, Daingerfield, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard Woods, Daingerfield-Lone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-319A1.txt
  • as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because Hawthorn failed to timely appeal the April 14, 2000 decision to either the Commission or SLD, the Requests for Review will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed November 17, 2000, and December 4, 2000, by Hawthorn School District 73 District, Hawthorn, Illinois, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-31A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 30, 2000, by Newport Public School District, Newport, Rhode Island, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Alan Kritz, Newport
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-320A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 7, 1999, by Peach Public Libraries, Fort Valley, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Billy Tripp, Peach Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-321A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Windham failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Windham's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Windham Public Schools, Windham, Connecticut on January 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Millie C. Wheeler, Windham Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 3, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-324A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 22, 2000, by Half Hollow Hills School District, Dix Hills, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Charles
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-32A1.txt
  • Sanger has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sanger's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sanger's initial appeal, Sanger may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Sanger Unified School District, Sanger, California, on October 23, 2000, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kim Jacobsen, Sanger Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-33A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ana failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ana's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on October 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-34A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Tuckahoe Union failed to file an appeal of the September 15, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Tuckahoe Union's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tuckahoe Union Free School District, Eastchester, New York on October 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael V. Yazurlo, Ed.D, Tuckahoe Union Free School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-350A1.txt
  • In other instances where SLD has failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Adams Twelve's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, Northglenn, Colorado, on April 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Adams Twelve's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-351A1.txt
  • eliminate any incentive to avoid including ineligible expenses in their funding requests. This would significantly increase the administrative burden SLD would face while carrying out its obligation to guard against the occurrence of errors and fraud. Therefore, we cannot permit Cheney to amend its FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 16, 2000, by Cheney Public Schools, Cheney, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Cheney School District No. 360, filed May 16, 2000 (Request for Review). See Letter from Schools and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-352A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Flour Bluff Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, April 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Darrell Earwood, Flour Bluff Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-353A1.txt
  • and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Pioneerland's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Pioneerland's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by Pioneerland. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), section 1.113 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.113, IS WAIVED to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Pioneerland Library System, Willmar, Minnesota, on June 25, 1999,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-354A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Crown King's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Crown King's initial request, Crown King may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Crown King Public Library, Crown King, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Susan Hite, Crown King Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-355A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Dietrich failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Dietrich's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dietrich School District No. 314, Dietrich, Idaho on January 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Peter M. Bolz, Sr., Dietrich School District No. 314, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-356A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Grant County failed to file an appeal of the August 31, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Grant County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Grant County Education Service District, Canyon City, Oregon on May 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Coffey, Grant County Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-357A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Highway Christian's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Highway Christian's initial request, Highway Christian may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Highway Christian Academy, New York City, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Darren Page, Highway Christian Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-358A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because St. Pius V failed to file an appeal of the October 5, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Pius V's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Pius V Parish School, Jacksonville, Florida on January 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elise Kennedy, St. Pius V Parish School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-373A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because USD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss USD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Unified School District #214, Ulysses, Kansas on February 5, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joe Breeden, Unified School District #214, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 5, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-387A1.txt
  • Request For Proposal (RFP) for the original services. Accordingly, we conclude that LAUSD's request for a service change should be considered by SLD in accordance with this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and the Commission's rules, sections 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, 47 U.S.C. §§ 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Guidance by the Universal Service Administrative Company concerning the Request of Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, filed on February 9, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau USAC Letter from D. Scott Barash to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-411A1.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Acadia Parish's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Acadia Parish's use of its remote access router to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Acadia Parish School Board 5, Crowley, Louisiana, on May 26, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Acadia Parish's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-412A1.txt
  • for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Antioch seeks support for tariffed services and for contracts entered into in April and July of 1999. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Antioch's requests for support. The Division, therefore, denies Antioch's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Antioch Unified School District, Antioch, California, on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael Gudjohnsen, Director of Purchasing, Antioch Unified School District Purchasing Department, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-420A1.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Buffalo and Erie's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts, and consequently, whether maintenance and memory upgrades of such routers are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie County Public Library on May 19, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Buffalo's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-433A1.txt
  • only asserts that service will commence on or after the date of the letter. Consequently, we find Livingston Parish's argument unpersuasive and in the absence of other evidence in the record we find that the Applicant violated the 28-day waiting period with regard to the Com-Net vendor. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Livingston Parish School District, Livingston Louisiana, on May 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Rogers Pope, Livingston Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-434A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Los Angeles Unified's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Los Angeles Unified's initial request, Los Angeles Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Catherine Banker, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-435A1.txt
  • that comprise a single school would generally be considered internal connections rather than part of a WAN. Nothing in the record before us indicates whether the other building is an instructional building comprising part of the same school. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Solomon Schechter School of Greater Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, on May 4, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Solomon Schechter's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-44A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-44A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-44A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Austin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Austin Independent School District, Austin, Texas, on May 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pascal D. Forgione, Austin Independent School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 12, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-45A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-45A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-45A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Baldwin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Baldwin Public Library, Baldwin, New York, on May 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Hopkins, Baldwin Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 31, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-463A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Los Angeles Unified's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Los Angeles Unified's initial request, Los Angeles Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Catherine Banker, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-464A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 19, 2000, by Salem County Vocational Technical Schools, Woodstown, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Esther R. Pennell,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-46A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Lakeside's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Lakeside Youth Services, Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania, on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Lakeside Youth Services), to the Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-47A1.txt
  • Harbor's request for services to SLD's website. The contracts for which Oak Harbor seeks support, however, do not meet either of the limited exceptions for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Oak Harbor's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 13, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Oak Harbor School District No. 201, Oak Harbor, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce E. Worley, Oak Harbor School District No. 201, to the Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-48A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Wells' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Wells Public Library, Wells, Maine, on June 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sandra Broomfield, Wells Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed June 9, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-506A1.txt
  • and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. For that reason, Petersburg's Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petersburg City Public Schools, dated June 6, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Herbert H. Morris, Petersburg Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 6, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-516A1.txt
  • substantially complete.'' Upon review of the record in each of the Requests for Review, we conclude that each presents circumstances factually similar to those in Naperville and meets the standards articulated in Naperville. Accordingly, we remand the applications to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul A. Mulder, Allendale Public Schools, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-523A1.txt
  • rule. Caribou's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Caribou from having to comply with our policies regarding ineligible services. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Caribou School District, Caribou, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn McNeal, Caribou Regional School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 18, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-524A1.txt
  • funded. Given the volume of applications that SLD reviews every year, it is critical that applicants follow instructions and seek support only for eligible services, so that the program can effectively target funds to those services that can be supported. Ultimately, this benefits deserving schools and libraries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 7, 2000, Request for Review filed by Maine School Administrative District #49, Fairfield, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Maine School Administrative District #49 of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-525A1.txt
  • Because ineligible equipment constituted more than thirty percent of St. Landry's original funding request, and in light of the prohibition against allowing applicants to amend their applications once the filing window has closed, we affirm SLD's decision to reject St. Landry's funding request in its entirety. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 28, 2000, by St. Landry Parish School District, Opelousas, Louisiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lanny Moreau, St. Landry Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-585A1.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. Allowing applicants who fail to follow program rules to amend their applications prejudices other applicants who properly completed their applications and sought only eligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 12, 1999, by Caddo Parish School Board, Shreveport, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-586A1.txt
  • employees, grounds/maintenance workers, and food service/warehouse workers, which are clearly ineligible for funding under the program rules because they fail to serve an educational purpose. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, deny Rockwood's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 12, 2000, by Rockwood School District R 6, Eureka, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Wester, Rockwood School District R 6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-587A1.txt
  • failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Springfield's application to SLD for further consideration under applicable program rules and policies. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 18, 2000 by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Springfield's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-588A1.txt
  • Heights' Request for Review seeking to use this method must be denied. In addition, we reject Western Heights' assertion that this appeal raises a novel issue of policy which must be considered by the full Commission, because as noted above, the Commission has already addressed the issue. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Western Heights School District, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on July 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request For Review by John D. Harrington, Funds for Learning, on behalf of Western Heights School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-648A1.txt
  • in its application, we find that the ineligible services requested in FRN 264664 totals less than 30 percent of the total request. We therefore remand Boston Public Library's application to SLD for further consideration and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library, Boston, Massachusetts, on June 5, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent described herein, and is otherwise DENIED. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-649A1.txt
  • to require an applicant to be responsible for providing sufficient information in its FCC Form 471 to enable SLD to determine whether the requested services are eligible. In the absence of such information, we believe that SLD was justified in concluding that this request should be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library on May 30, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as discussed herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-650A1.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie I directly applies and on remand, SLD should review the capabilities and actual use of the Cisco 2501 routers in question to determine whether these routers are discount eligible and consequently, whether the requested operating system and memory upgrades are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie Public Library on July 11, 2000 is GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-652A1.txt
  • and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. We therefore deny Paducah's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 7, 2000, by Paducah Public Schools, Paducah, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Nelson, Paducah Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for Review). Letter from Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-653A1.txt
  • administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service funds to eligible services only. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 12, 2000 Request for Review filed by Pike County School District, Troy, Alabama, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sherry A. Key and Dr. John R. Key, Pike County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-654A1.txt
  • requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, affirm SLD's decision to deny Portland's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Portland Public Schools, Portland, Oregon, on February 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Chris Bronsema, Portland Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2000 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-655A1.txt
  • otherwise been entitled, and because there is no evidence in SLD's records that Visitation attempted to correct this error at any time prior to approval, we conclude that SLD correctly affirmed its funding commitment based on the total pre-discount cost reported in the applicant's FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Visitation Academy, dated May 24, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John H. Leaman, Visitation Academy, Bay City, Michigan, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 24, 2000 (Request for Review). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-65A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-65A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-65A1.txt
  • applicants provide accurate information regarding funding requests. The Administrator must be able to reasonably estimate the total demand for support submitted by applicants during each filing period in order to make determinations regarding the availability of funding. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly denied Carl Schurz's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School on May 23, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 23, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-736A1.txt
  • service provider taking part in the bidding process, SLD reasonably determined that the Commission's competitive bidding rules were violated under the precedent established in Mastermind. Therefore, SLD properly removed the relevant Forms 470 off its web-site and denied the funding requests in the associated Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by A. R. Carethers SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Applegate Adventist Academy on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Berean SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-773A1.txt
  • 471 filing deadline. The record shows that Audrey Pack complied with the program's requirements in providing additional information to SLD on December 13, 2000. Thus, the untimely posting of the FCC Form 470 is not attributable to Audrey Pack. We therefore grant Audrey Pack's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Audrey Pack Memorial Library, Spring City, Tennessee on July 3, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process Audrey Pack's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-774A1.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Bibb's request to change service providers. On March 12, 2001, Bibb filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Bibb's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Bibb's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Bibb County Board of Education, Centreville, Alabama, on March 12, 2001 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-775A1.txt
  • that includes both eligible and ineligible products. Given Commission rules and precedent, SLD properly denied Fairfax's entire funding request. Therefore, SLD clearly has authority, under these limited circumstances, to deny funding requests that include both eligible and ineligible services, and we reject Fairfax's claims to the contrary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 22, 2000 by Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Fairfax County Public Library, of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-776A1.txt
  • also emphasized that ``your response on [the Item 22 Review] worksheets should represent the total of all of the resources available in all of the eligible entities covered by your request.'' Because CMCC failed to comply with these clear directives, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Central Minnesota Computing Center, filed October 13, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael T. Bauer, Central Minnesota Computer Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 13, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-777A1.txt
  • additional administrative burdens. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We therefore deny St. John's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John the Baptist School, Petersburg, Nebraska on May 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Reicks, St. John the Baptist School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-778A1.txt
  • of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). The Commission's rules provide that requests for review of decisions issued by the Administrator shall be considered and acted upon by the Common Carrier Bureau, except that requests which raise novel questions of fact, law or policy shall be considered by the full Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). Request for Review by Copan 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-26231, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, 15 FCC Rcd 5498, ¶ 1 (rel. 2000) (Copan Order). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services Requested and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-793A1.txt
  • Therefore, we disagree with SLD's assessment that well over 30 % of the funding request is ineligible under program rules. Accordingly, we grant Chelmsford's request for review and remand its application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider this FRN consistent with program rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 22, 2000, by Chelmsford Public School District, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and remanded to the Schools and Libraries Division. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chelmsford's funding application and to issue a revised
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-794A1.txt
  • only $18,000. The information provided by CVA indicates that CVA's available technological and budgetary resources were inadequate, thus CVA failed to demonstrate that it possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny CVA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 26, 2000, by the Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Monte Nardy, Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed October 26, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-795A1.txt
  • to post them to its web site in a timely manner causing the waiting period to extend past the filing window deadline. In this instance, however, Henderson's defective Form 470, not SLD, caused the posting delay. Therefore, a waiver of the Commission's rules is not warranted. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Country Library System, Watertown, New York, on behalf of Henderson Free Library, Henderson, New York, on June 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Yvonne Reff, North Country
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-796A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Little Miami failed to file an appeal of the August 10, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Little Miami's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Little Miami Local School District, Morrow, Ohio on May 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Long, Little Miami Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-797A1.txt
  • it assigned a ``$0'' amount to the ``[i]nstallation of telephone wiring'' identified in an attachment to its FCC Form 471. Manhasset's application supports SLD's determination that wiring costs included in Manhattan's FCC Form 471 are attributable to an ineligible product rather than to eligible telephone wiring. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2000, by Manhasset Union Free School District, Westbury, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-798A1.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Here, New Albany's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, New Albany, Indiana, on May 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dennis A. Cahill, New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-833A1.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Hood River's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Hood River's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hood River County School District on May 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Hood River's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-834A1.txt
  • pursuant to existing, binding contracts. Accordingly, SLD posted those services on its website for competitive bidding. Mobile did not wait 28 days before renewing an agreement with a service provider, and did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. The Division, therefore, denies Mobile's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mobile County Public School System, Mobile, Alabama, on August 3, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Margaret Blake, Mobile County Public School System, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-852A1.txt
  • than five times as many computer ports as available computers. We find that neither BTCS nor Total Communications USA demonstrated to SLD that BTCS possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny BTCS's request for review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bethlehem Temple Christian School, Duquesne, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Benjamin J. Aron, Schwaninger & Associates, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8, 1999 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-853A1.txt
  • have the necessary resources to make effective use of the services and connections it requested. Therefore, we find no merit in Laurel Hall's argument to the contrary. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on January 14, 2000 by the Laurel Hall School, Hagerstown, Maryland, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of Benjamin J. Aron, Counsel, Laurel Hall School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-854A1.txt
  • contracts for bidding, we must reject Mercer County's argument that this form has satisfied its competitive bidding obligations on the relevant requests. Instead, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Mercer County for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County School District on June 7, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Mercer County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-855A1.txt
  • as a waiver of the 30-day rule, because SLD has no authority to make such a waiver. Since Mass. DOE is not entitled to relief even when the merits are considered, we need not decide whether it would be appropriate to grant a waiver of section 54.720. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 5, 2000 by Massachusetts Department of Education, Malden, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Fuller, Massachusetts Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 5, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-873A1.txt
  • governing the calculation of discount rates. As in Hamilton County School Board, SLD has properly applied the Commission's rules and the program's procedures. These applicants' challenge to the fairness of the rules is properly initiated by filing a petition for rulemaking, rather than a Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Calhoun County School District on August 10, 2000; by Craig City School District on May 17, 2000; by Holmes County School District on May 8, 2000; by Jackson County School Board on May 12, 2000; by Lake County Schools on June 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-876A1.txt
  • average discount method described in Hamilton's Request for Review for those discounts. The method described in Hamilton's Request for Review applies only for services shared by multiple schools and only those schools sharing the services-as opposed to all schools in the school district-are included in that calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Hamilton County School Board, Jasper, Florida, on May 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Parks, Hamilton County School Board, filed May 9, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-877A1.txt
  • funding request. Given the phrasing of SLD's request for information on individual hardware costs, we conclude that it was reasonable for Kerman to interpret SLD's inquiry as not requesting information relating to other costs, such as labor. Accordingly, we remand Kerman's application to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 12, 2000, by Kerman Unified School District, Kerman, California, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Library Division to review Kerman's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-891A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 29, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-892A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 14, 2001, by Rome City School District, Rome, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to David Smith, Rome City
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-918A1.txt
  • which components of the Dukane SmartSystem were deemed ineligible for funding by SLD. Accordingly, we cannot ascertain whether the 30 percent policy was correctly applied in this case. For that reason, we remand Delano Union's application and direct SLD to review the eligibility of the requested services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 9, 2000, by Delano Union, Delano, California, IS GRANTED to the extent described herein. We direct SLD to review Delano Union's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-920A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lemoore failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lemoore's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lemoore Union High School District, Hanford, California on February 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ellen Kimbriel, Lemoore Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-921A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Christopher-Ottilie's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Christopher-Ottilie's initial request, St. Christopher-Ottilie may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 12, 2001, by St. Christopher-Ottilie, Glen Cove, New York, on behalf of Theresa Paplin School, Glen Cove, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1089A1.txt
  • in New York City's public schools, the provision of discounted services for administrative entities such as professional development centers is beyond the scope of our statutory authority and would divert support from the program's intended beneficiaries. We therefore affirm SLD's decision to deny discounts to the UFTTC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, New York, on behalf of applicant United Federation of Teachers Teachers Centers, New York, New York, on May 21, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1090A1.txt
  • BOE does not create eligibility if WYNE is otherwise ineligible. Eligibility is based on the function of the site, not the association with eligible entities. Because WNYE is not eligible to receive discounted local, long distance, and cellular service, we affirm SLD's denial of WNYE's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, New York, on behalf of applicant, NYC BOE/WYNE, New York, New York, on May 21, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jackson S. N.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1101A1.txt
  • 18, 2001. Therefore, we dismiss Amity Regional's Request for Review as moot. Nothing in this Order prevents Amity Regional from appealing the Administrator's Decision on Appeal to the Commission within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Amity Regional High School, Woodbridge, Connecticut, on August 20, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joseph Campbell, Amity Regional High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1102A1.txt
  • filing that was given to applicants that met the Year 3 Server Failure Order criteria. Therefore, Bennett has demonstrated that it satisfied the criteria of the Year 3 Server Failure Order and its FCC Form 471 should be considered as timely filed within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bennett County School District 3-1, Martin, South Dakota on May 30, 2001, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ken Luckert, Bennett County School District 3-1 to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1103A1.txt
  • demonstrate that it submitted the correct Funding Year 4 FCC Form 471 application in compliance with the required minimum processing standards for Funding Year 4. We further, conclude that, Capitol Region has failed to make a showing warranting relief and we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2001 by Capitol Region Library Council, Windsor, Connecticut IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kenneth Sutton, Capitol Region Library Council, to Federal Communications Commission, dated July 13,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1104A1.txt
  • for other applicants. In light of the enormous demand for discounts under the support mechanism, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Charles Gibson Public Library, Buckhannon, West Virginia, on September 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Denise Weese, Charles Gibson Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1105A1.txt
  • of certifying an FCC Form 471. We see no reason in the record before us to deviate from this precedent. Thus, we find that the photocopied signature on Dodge's Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471 meets minimum processing standards, and direct the Administrator to process Dodge's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 25, 2000 by Dodge Memorial Public Library, Tamms, Illinois, IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from June Cain, Dodge Memorial
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1106A1.txt
  • Freeman has not offered an additional explanation of why it was late in submitting the applications, other than its unsubstantiated claim that it was affected by the server failure. We therefore conclude that Freeman has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Freeman School District No. 358, Rockford, Washington, on June 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jan Davis, Freeman School District No. 358, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1107A1.txt
  • held that applicants are not permitted to amend their applications after the close of the filing window to correct errors. We see no reason to depart from this precedent here. Accordingly, we find that the new evidence submitted with the Request for Review does not support relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Granger School District No. 204 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Timothy Dunn, Granger School District No. 204, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 17, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1108A1.txt
  • held that a photocopied signature constitutes a valid signature for purposes of certifying an FCC Form 471. Thus, we find that the photocopied signature on Kanawha's initially submitted Funding Year 4 FCC Form 471 application meets minimum processing standards, and direct the Administrator to process Kanawha's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 24, 2001 by Kanawha Christian School, Kanawha, Iowa IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Vicki Hillenga, Kanawha Christian School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1109A1.txt
  • website. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under section 1.106(j) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(j), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by E-Rate Central on behalf of Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, on February 15, 2001, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver filed by E-Rate Central on behalf of Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, and other unspecified applicants, on February 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Petition for Reconsideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1110A1.txt
  • only evidence supporting a breakdown of eligible and ineligible maintenance costs, we find that SLD properly attributed the percentage of ineligibility of the LAN hardware to the LAN maintenance contract. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly found 30% or more of the LAN maintenance contract ineligible. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Massillon City School District, Massillon, Ohio, on September 4, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Massillon City School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1111A1.txt
  • the application. We find no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Accordingly, we find that SLD appropriately denied Mettawee's request to provide funding for services provided by OneStar and the State of Vermont. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 18, 2002 by Mettawee Community School IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy M. Mark, Mettawee Community School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 12, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1112A1.txt
  • service support mechanism. Specifically, Mid Peninsula requests that SLD consider invoices requesting payment for funding request numbers (FRN) 218261 and 218262. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Mid Peninsula's request. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Mid Peninsula's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 4, 2001 by Mid Peninsula School, Rock, Michigan, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tammy Winters, Mid Peninsula School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 4, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1113A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Perth Amboy fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Perth Amboy Public Schools, Perth Amboy, New Jersey on October 5, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file the appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1114A1.txt
  • to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Pleasantville has failed to demonstrate the merits of its Request for Review, or good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Pleasantville's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2001, by Pleasantville Public Schools, Pleasantville, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Addison Williams, Pleasantville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1116A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ropes Independent School District, Ropesville, Texas, on April 1, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Elbert Wuthrich, Ropes Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1117A1.txt
  • is also consistent with the conclusion that the cost of maintaining telephones will be calculated on a per-port basis. Because we find that Rochester sought discounts on ineligible telephone maintenance costs, we affirm SLD's determination that 30% or more of FRN 304074 sought discounts on ineligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rochester Public Library, Rochester, New York, on May 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard Panz, Rochester Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 2, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1118A1.txt
  • Commitment Decision Letter was issued and 35 days after the September Request was faxed. Because Yeshiva did not provide SLD with information that supported of the amounts requested in the four FRNs at issue in this appeal in a timely fashion, we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Avir Yakov, Sprint Valley, New York, on May 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles Bludman, Yeshiva Avir Yakov, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1119A1.txt
  • the record reflects that Arugath did not file its FCC Form 471 within the filing window and Arugath fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find an insufficient basis for waiving the filing window deadline. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Yeshivah and Mesivta Arugath Habosem, Brooklyn, New York, on August 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Israel Engelman, Yeshivah and Mesivta Arugath Habosem, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1120A1.txt
  • section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Walker-Hackensack failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2001, by Walker-Hackensack-Akeley Public Schools, Independent School District 113, Walker, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniel A. Falk, Walker-Hackensack-Akeley Public Schools, Independent School District 113, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1121A1.txt
  • was not ``easily discernable.'' Even if SLD were to consider the contract here, the reference to ``circuits to the [district]'' would not qualify as the sort of unambiguous evidence from which the entities receiving service may be easily discernable. Therefore, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Meadow Union Free School District, East Meadow, New York, on July 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, on behalf of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1122A1.txt
  • also put in question where an applicant certifies before the end of the 28-day period. We therefore find that SLD appropriately requires applicants to wait 28 days before signing the certifications. Because New Albany concededly did not comply with this requirement, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, New Albany, Indiana, on October 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1123A1.txt
  • it had contracted with was indeed a designated telecommunications provider whose status could be appropriately substantiated. Therefore, we find based on the record before us that Autotote is not eligible to receive direct support under the universal service support mechanism for providing telecommunications services to Virginia DOE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by the Virginia State Department of Education, Richmond, Virginia, on April 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Virginia State Department of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1124A1.txt
  • generally find it administratively appropriate to require applicants to strictly adhere to minimum processing standards. Further, the Wireline Competition Bureau has specifically upheld the category of service minimum processing standard. We therefore find that SLD appropriately rejected Coffeeville's application for failure to satisfy this minimum processing standard. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Coffeeville School District, Coffeeville, Missouri, on June 25, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Aubrey Ray, Coffeeville School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 25, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1125A1.txt
  • light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. We therefore affirm SLD's decision and deny Kimball's Request for Review. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 2, 2001 by the Kimball School District 7-2, Kimball, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Patricia Booth, Dakota State University Business and Education Institute, on behalf
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1126A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Forestburg fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Forestburg Independent School District, Forestburg, Texas on January 11, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1183A1.txt
  • services for Funding Year 2. SLD denied Blackduck's request because its FCC Form 471 did not meet SLD's minimum processing standards. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Blackduck is seeking. Blackduck's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Blackduck Public Schools, Blackduck, Minnesota, on August 8, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tom Mathews, Blackduck Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 8,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1184A1.txt
  • it provided under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. We have determined, however, that, on April 18, 2002, SLD provided full funding of this invoice. Because SLD has granted the relief that Contra Costa Electric, Inc. is seeking, the Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Contra Costa Electric, Inc. on January 10, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tracey McDaniel, Contra Costa Electric, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1202A1.txt
  • a complete Funding Year 4 FCC Form 471 application in compliance with the required minimum processing standards for Funding Year 4. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, CESA has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 22, 2001 by Cooperative Educational Service Agency #2, Milton, Wisconsin IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sharon Webb, Cooperative Educational Service Agency #2, to Federal Communications Commission, dated July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1203A1.txt
  • impact on students and staff does not create the special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Macon has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we must deny its Waiver Request ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Macon County R-I School District, Macon, Missouri, on January 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Harold Brown, Macon County R-I School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1204A1.txt
  • information number or the service provider name in items 13 or 14 of Block 5. Accordingly, we find that by not providing information in items 13 or 14, Merrimack did not meet minimum processing standards for this request. As a result, we deny Merrimack's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 6, 2001 by Merrimack Valley Library Consortium IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lawrence R. Rungren, Merrimack Valley Library Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1205A1.txt
  • percent of the cost of the FRN, and therefore properly denied the entire FRN. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York Military Academy, Cornwall-on-Hudson, on October 18, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donald Schwegler, New York Military Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 18, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1206A1.txt
  • can be efficiently and effectively fulfilled. Queen of Peace provides no evidence of special circumstances warranting deviation from our rule establishing the filing window deadline. We therefore conclude that Queen of Peace has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) that the Waiver Request filed by Queen of Peace Elementary School, North Arlington, New Jersey, on August 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Schlitt, Queen of Peace Church, on behalf of Queen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1207A1.txt
  • fiber optic build-out is therefore an eligible telecommunications cost. Accordingly, we grant the Request for Review, and remand to SLD for further review of FRN 452541 consistent with this decision. In so doing, we make no final determination as to whether the one-time cost should be funded. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Southwest Virginia Education and Training Network, Abingdon, Virginia, on June 8, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this application IS REMANDED for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1208A1.txt
  • would have a detrimental impact on the school or library in question and that such impact is a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Tuxedo has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Tuxedo Park School, Tuxedo Park, New York, on December 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Pearson and Ann Doherty Cooke, Tuxedo Park School, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1209A1.txt
  • to carefully review its application before submission to SLD and ensure that it complied with program rules and regulations. We therefore find that Union fails to present good cause as to why the Commission's rules should be waived. As a result, we deny Union's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 23, 2001 by Union County School District IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wayne Goforth, Union County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1210A1.txt
  • (Administrator). Winnisquam seeks review and reversal of SLD's denial of Winnisquam's request to split a funding request between two service providers. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Winnisquam is seeking. The Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winnisquam Regional School District, Northfield, New Hampshire, on February 26, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kevin B. Sousa, Winnisquam Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1211A1.txt
  • proceeding. If it were, then the requirement that the proceeding be ``ongoing'' would be meaningless. Therefore, we find that Chawanakee is not entitled to raise a PRA challenge to the application decision, and the Request for Review must be dismissed as untimely in accordance with Commission regulations. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chawanakee Joint Elementary School District, North Fork, California, on September 6, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Chawanakee Joint Elementary School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1212A1.txt
  • Form 470 posted in a previous year. As a result, Dickenson could not, in any case, support its Funding Year 4 request for month-to-month service by reliance on the Funding Year 1 DIT Form 470. We therefore deny Dickenson's request to substitute a new FCC Form 470. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dickenson County Public Schools, Clintwood, Virginia, on March 5, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from David C. Yates, Dickenson County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1224A1.txt
  • the deadline had already passed. Albany County offers no additional reason why it did not meet the deadline. We find that Albany County has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from the general rule, and, therefore, we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Albany County Public Schools, Albany County, Minnesota on August 7, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rocky Tyler, Albany County School District 1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1225A1.txt
  • granted because the error was unintentional. It is well established, however, that applicants are responsible for ensuring that their applications are made on the correct forms. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by B. F. Jones Memorial Library, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, on January 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Colombo, B.F. Jones Memorial Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1226A1.txt
  • create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we cannot give a waiver based on the premise that the library is small and well-used. We conclude that Central City has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Central City Public Library, Central City, Nebraska, on December 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynn Manhart, Central City Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1227A1.txt
  • evidence that the material was sent by January 18, 2001. If the applicant can submit proof, then the application should be considered within the filing window. If the applicant cannot submit such proof, SLD should treat this application in accordance with its standard procedures for illegible postmarks. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jaffrey-Rindge Cooperative School District, Jaffrey, New Hampshire, on September 4, 2001, IS REMANDED to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paul LaFreniere, Jaffrey-Rindge
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1228A1.txt
  • have accepted receipts from couriers as evidence of when material was sent to SLD. Therefore, we find that Karnes filed its FCC Form 471 application, including the Block 6 certification page and the Item 21 attachments, by the close of the filing window in Funding Year 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Karnes City Independent School District, on August 29, 2001, IS GRANTED, and the matter is remanded to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1229A1.txt
  • has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its application. We have denied waiver requests based upon an applicant's claim that it misunderstood the program rules. For these reasons, Molalla's contention that it misunderstood the rules does not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Molalla's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Molalla River School District, Molalla, Oregon, on July 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Nickless, Molalla River School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1230A1.txt
  • filing window, it has treated this as a request for waiver of the filing deadline and directed Mora to make this request to the Commission. Because we find that this material was timely filed, we need not address Mora's request for a waiver of the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Mora Public Schools, Mora, Minnesota on August 7, 2001 IS REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Keith Lester, Mora Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1231A1.txt
  • on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Lane has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a waiver of the filing deadline, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lane Education Service District, Eugene Oregon, on August 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Randy Trummer, Lane Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1232A1.txt
  • If SLD determines that Halifax did attempt to contact SLD directly or through its state coordinator about its inability to electronically file, then Halifax's application should be treated as timely. If SLD determines the applicant did not attempt to do so, then no waiver is appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services on behalf of North Carolina Department of Commerce - SIPS, Halifax County School District, on May 18, 2001, IS REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1233A1.txt
  • application review process or during an SLD appeal review, it would eliminate any incentive to comply with the SLD's document demands in a timely fashion. This would significantly increase the administrative burden SLD would face. We, therefore, deny Petitioner's Request for Review and uphold SLD's funding decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 31, 2001, by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services, Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Commerce - SIPS, Wright School, Durham, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunication Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1234A1.txt
  • responsibility for complying with our rules and procedures. Ridgefield does not offer any explanation of why its FCC Form 471 application was filed after the filing deadline. Therefore, we conclude that Ridgefield has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Ridgefield Public Schools, Ridgefield, Connecticut, on August 24, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Division Wireline Competition Bureau On August 24, 2001, Ridgefield filed copies of its appeal letter to SLD and subsequent reply from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1235A1.txt
  • indicate that Schechter used the mail to submit a copy of the main portion of its application. Therefore, we find that Schechter did not submit that portion of the application either electronically or by mail within the filing window, and we deny Schechter's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 27, 2001, by Solomon Schechter School of Queens, Flushing, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susanne Felder, Solomon Schechter School of Queens, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1236A1.txt
  • missed the Funding Year 4 filing deadline for seven applications for discounts under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. However, since TSBVI filed its Request for Review, SLD has granted the relief that TSBVI was seeking. Therefore, TSBVI's Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Austin, Texas on September 4, 2001, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig Abbe, Texas School for the Blind
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1237A1.txt
  • comply with the program. The circumstances described by Tuscarora do not constitute special circumstances for purposes of our waiver standard. Therefore, we conclude that Tuscarora has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tuscarora Intermediate Unit 11, McVeytown, Pennsylvania, on September 14, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tony Payne, Tuscarora Intermediate Unit 11, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1262A1.txt
  • the official record supporting Bloomingdale's assertion that it did not receive the Funding Commitment Decision Letter. Moreover, Bloomingdale fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on March 18, 2002, by Bloomingdale Elementary Schools, Bloomingdale, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Janis
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1263A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Easton Area failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Easton Area's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Easton Area School District, Easton, Pennsylvania on April 1, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Thomas G. Drago, Easton Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1264A1.txt
  • 18, 2001. Therefore, we dismiss Golden Ridge's Request for Review as moot. Nothing in this Order prevents Golden Ridge from appealing the Administrator's Decision on Appeal to the Commission within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Golden Ridge School, Fairfield, Montana, on August 20, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Caroline Forseth, Golden Ridge School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1265A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 28, 2002, by Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, Wheeling, West Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Judith A. Stechly, Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1317A1.txt
  • and therefore meets the Minimum Processing Standard for an original ink signature. Thus, we find that Panhandle's application should be processed in accordance with the precedent established in the New Hartford Order. Therefore, we remand Panhandle's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Panhandle Public Library Cooperative System on August 15, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Panhandle's application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-136A1.txt
  • easily confirm by searching the posted FCC Form 470s in the Funding Year 2 group, Saint Mary should have understood that its FCC Form 470 would not be valid for Funding Year 3. We conclude that a waiver of the competitive bidding requirements is not appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Mary School, Putnam, Connecticut, on March 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Phyllis A. Hickey, Saint Mary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 22, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-137A1.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because South San Antonio failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 FCDL until August 17, 2000, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss South San Antonio's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 14, 2000, by South San Antonio Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Frank Harmier, South San Antonio Independent School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-138A1.txt
  • inappropriate to take further action unless and until a specific applicant comes before us seeking review. We therefore deny Virginia DOE's Request for Review in its entirety. In doing so, we offer no opinion as to the merits of any other Request for Review pending before us. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Virginia Department of Education, Warsaw, Virginia, on March 14, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lan Neugent, Virginia Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 14, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1403A1.txt
  • find cause to waive section 54.501(c)(2) for the ineligible entities within Shawnee System's Year 1 request in the same manner and for the same reasons as the regulations waived in the Commitment Adjustment Waiver Order. Thus, Shawnee System's Year 1 commitment will not be subject to adjustment. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shawnee Library System on June 7, 2000, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the application IS REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-5, 201-205, 254,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1404A1.txt
  • Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), denying their request for discounted services. On April 22, 2002, the above-captioned entities filed Requests to Withdraw their Requests for Review. The Division grants the above-captioned entities' Withdrawal Requests and, accordingly, dismisses the above-captioned entities' Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Withdrawal Requests submitted by Lee County School District, Bishopville, South Carolina, filed April 22, 2002; and Marlboro County School District, Bennettsville, South Carolina, filed April 22, 2002, ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1405A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Fairfield fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on March 13, 2002, by Fairfield Public Schools, Fairfield, Connecticut ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Brian
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1406A1.txt
  • submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. Here, Plymouth fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Plymouth School District, Terryville, Connecticut, on November 15, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1407A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Bangor fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Professional Information Networks, Bangor, Maine, on April 24, 2002, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1408A1.txt
  • 82% discount rate. The record demonstrates that for the FRNs at issue, SWCS was entitled to only 60% and 70% discount rates based on the discount matrix. We therefore deny SWCS's Request for Review based on arguments that the services sought were incorrectly classified as internal connections. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 19, 2001, by Southeast Webster Community Schools, Burnside, Iowa, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mike Jorgensen, Southeast Webster Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-141A1.txt
  • decision by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to cancel a funding award in Funding Year 1 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. By letter filed January 10, 2002, NSCI requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by National School Conference Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, on March 27, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jerry George, National School Conference Institute, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 27, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-142A1.txt
  • Notre Dame's Application 2 should be processed in accordance with New Hartford. The record demonstrates that Notre Dame's Application 2 complied with the program's requirements in all other respects. Under the circumstances, we remand Notre Dame's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Notre Dame High School, Riverside, California on August 15, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Notre Dame's application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-143A1.txt
  • a decision of the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), denying Arrowhead's request for discounted services. On December 12, 2001, Arrowhead submitted a facsimile withdrawing its Request for Review. The Division grants Arrowhead's Withdrawal Request and, accordingly, dismisses Arrowhead's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Withdrawal Request submitted by Arrowhead Library System, Virginia, Minnesota, on December 12, 2001 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-144A1.txt
  • of SLD's denial of Horseheads' request to have one of its Funding Year 3 funding requests split into two separate requests. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Horseheads is seeking. Horseheads' Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Horseheads Central School District, Syracuse, New York, on March 23, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Shari Dwyer, Horseheads Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1457A1.txt
  • Brentwood has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Brentwood's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Brentwood's initial request, Brentwood may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Brentwood High School, Brentwood, Missouri, on March 15, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeanne Buschart, Brentwood High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1458A1.txt
  • applicant ultimately bears the responsibility of completing the relevant forms and submitting them within the established deadline if the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. We therefore conclude that Duncanville has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Duncanville ISD, Duncanville, Texas, on May 15, 2001, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Andrew W. Berning, Duncanville Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1459A1.txt
  • separate schools was accurate or not. Colonial Beach's assertion that it is listed by the state as a ``school district'' is not persuasive evidence on this point. Under the Commission's rules, school districts are not necessarily equivalent to a single school for purposes of discount rate calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Colonial Beach Schools, Colonial Beach, Virginia, on February 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kathleen F. Beane, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-145A1.txt
  • was the case in Naperville, the record reflects that Hudson's application, after corrections performed by SLD during its initial review, is otherwise substantially complete. Therefore, we grant a waiver of the filing window and remand the application to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hudson Falls Central School, Hudson Falls, New York, on June 29, 2000 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1460A1.txt
  • 888-203-0733. Lack of Internet access therefore also provides no grounds for relief. Finally, Gladwin pleads that the library is poor and deserving of funding. However, the assertion of need does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Gladwin County Library (Gladwin), Gladwin, Michigan, on September 10, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from David Volk, Gladwin County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1461A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 7, 2002, by The New School for Enterprise and Development Public Charter School, Washington, DC, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from JoEtta Patterson, The New School for Enterprise
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1462A1.txt
  • to its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, applicants must assume responsibility for timely submission of their appeals to SLD if they wish their appeals to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Reavis Math/Science Specialty School, Chicago, Illinois, on May 13, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1464A1.txt
  • well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Buffalo City School District with the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company on May 16, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-146A1.txt
  • Administrator apportion one of its funding requests, because the service provider no longer provides part of the requested service. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Nelson's request to adjust the funding request. Accordingly, we dismiss Nelson's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 26, 2001, by Nelson County Public Library, Bardstown, Kentucky IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Irene H. Underwood, Nelson County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-147A1.txt
  • SLD's rejection of Orange County's Funding Year 4 application for discounts under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Orange County is seeking. Orange County's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida, on March 2, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne H. Atherton, Orange County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-148A1.txt
  • decision on July 13, 2001, denying Prairie Home's appeal to SLD. Because the Administrator's decision was not addressed in the instant Request for Review to the Commission, Prairie Home may request review of the July 13, 2001 decision within 30 days of the release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Prairie Home Public Schools R-V, Prairie Home, Missouri, on February 13, 2001 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Larry L. Davis, Prairie Home Public Schools R-V, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-149A1.txt
  • and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of correct application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bonesteel-Fairfax fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bonesteel-Fairfax High School, Bonesteel, South Dakota, on August 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Loris J. Lindskov, Bonesteel-Fairfax High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 3, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-150A1.txt
  • Shenandoah has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Shenandoah's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Shenandoah's initial request, Shenandoah may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shenandoah Valley School District, Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, on September 6, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Annmarie Carter, Shenandoah Valley School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1511A1.txt
  • addressed to the correct address for FCC Form 471 submission, and postmarked February 15, 2001. Based on this clear evidence that Baxter submitted its FCC Form 471 after January, we conclude that Baxter did not mail its FCC Form 471 by the close of the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baxter County Library, Mountain Home, Arkansas, on August 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gwen Khayat, Baxter County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1512A1.txt
  • attachments, was posted by the last day of the window. As noted above, the Block 6 certification page and Item 21 attachments were postmarked on January 22, 2001, and were therefore ineligible to be considered within the filing window. Therefore, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Desert Sands Unified School District, La Quinta, California, on August 22, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Araya, Desert Sands Unified School District, to the Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1513A1.txt
  • of an application may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we find that Jennings has failed to demonstrate good cause necessary to justify waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jennings City Library, Jennings, Kansas, on August 14, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sonya A. Gillespie, Jennings City Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1514A1.txt
  • be considered within the window. An applicant must further take responsibility for the actions of those employees or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Minneapolis Public Schools on behalf of Minneapolis Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carol Johnson, Minneapolis Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1515A1.txt
  • not address whether it mailed its certification and attachments by the filing deadline. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Mount Carmel did not file its certification and attachments within the filing window for Funding Year 4. Therefore, Mount Carmel's Request for Review is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mount Carmel School, Saipan, Northern Marianas Islands, on September 4, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linze McGilvrey, Mount Carmel School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1516A1.txt
  • with all relevant rules and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Randolph School District, Randolph, Vermont, on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Stephen Metcalf, Randolph School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1517A1.txt
  • is whether the entire application, complete with certification and attachments, was posted by the last day of the window. St. Mary's Block 6 certification page and Item 21 attachments were postmarked on January 19, 2001, and was therefore ineligible to be considered within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Mary's School-Rosebank, Staten Island, New York, on September 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Virginia Savarese, St. Mary's School-Rosebank, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1518A1.txt
  • that a denial of an application may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, San Benito has failed to demonstrate good cause to justify waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by San Benito Literacy Center, San Benito, Texas, on September 19, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ron Rogers, San Benito Literacy Center, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1519A1.txt
  • with the program's rules and procedures. Sangerville does not offer any reasons why a waiver of the Commission's rules should be granted. Therefore, we conclude that Sangerville has failed to demonstrate a sufficient basis for a waiver of the deadline, and we deny its waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sangerville Public Library, Sangerville, Maine, on September 12, 2001, and its request for waiver of the Funding Year 4 filing deadline ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linda
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1520A1.txt
  • must be postmarked no later than the close of the filing window. The particular facts of this case do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administration District 53, Pittsfield, Maine, on August 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard K. Woodbury, School Administration District 53 (Pittsfield), to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1521A1.txt
  • must be postmarked no later than the close of the filing window. The particular facts of this case do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wayzata Public Schools, Plymouth, Minnesota, on September 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mark Manning, Wayzata Public Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed September 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1522A1.txt
  • a denial of an application may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we find that Wilmington has not demonstrated special circumstances warranting a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wilmington Public Schools, Wilmington, Massachusetts, on February 27, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Louise Leland, Wilmington Public Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed February 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1535A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lake Erie's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lake Erie's initial request, Lake Erie may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 23, 2002, by Lake Erie Educational Computer Association, Elyria, Ohio, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lloyd Wright, Lake Erie Educational Computer Association, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1588A1.txt
  • relief, since any potential applicant can obtain forms and opening and closing dates for the application window by calling SLD's Client Service Bureau at 888-203-0733. The assertion of financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Deer Lodge, Holy Ghost, and Seton on April 10, February 28, and March 6, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Letter from Shad Bailey,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1610A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Escuela Moises Melendez's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Escuela Moises Melendez's initial request, Escuela Moises Melendez may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 29, 2002, by Escuela Moises Melendez, San Juan, Puerto Rico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Ramonita Vazquez Diaz, Escuela Moises Melendez, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1611A1.txt
  • have a detrimental impact on schools and libraries does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Atchison Public Schools, Atchison, Kansas, on July 23, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Corbin Witt, Atchison Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1612A1.txt
  • certifying a FCC Form 471. We find no reason in the record before us to deviate from this precedent. Thus, we find that the photocopied signature on Fayetteville's Funding Year 2001 FCC Form 471 meets minimum processing standards, and direct the Administrator to process Fayetteville's application. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 12, 2001 by Fayetteville Public Library, Fayetteville, Arkansas, IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to the Administrator for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steven Thomas, Fayetteville Public Library,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1613A1.txt
  • to its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Messmer Catholic Schools, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 23, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1614A1.txt
  • the application again for lack of a response. The only issue before us is SLD's initial denial of St. Mary's application based on the absence of the Item 21 attachments. Because SLD reversed that decision, we must dismiss St. Mary's School's Request for Review as moot. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Mary's School, Manchester, Iowa, on August 6, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joe Bearns, St. Mary's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1615A1.txt
  • resulting from the need to file a corrected version after a minimum processing standards rejection is not a special circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Mary's School, East Dubuque, Illinois, on July 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Nauman, St. Mary's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1616A1.txt
  • resulting from the need to file a corrected version after a minimum processing standards rejection is not a special circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Town of North Providence School Department, North Providence, Rhode Island, on July 31, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wayne Riendeau, Town of North Providence School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1617A1.txt
  • same application,'' were not also granted. However, the reason for the difference in outcomes is clear. In FCC Form 471 App. No. 152152, the signature date was April 5, 1999, not March 6, 1999, and thus, it did not indicate that a competitive bidding violation had occurred. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Onondaga Cortland Madison BOCES, Syracuse, New York, on August 18, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lawrence Dismore, Onondaga Cortland Madison BOCES, to Federal Communications Commission. filed August 18, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1672A1.txt
  • it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, ERIE 2 BOCES fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by ERIE 2 - Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Fredonia, New York, on May 24, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief ,Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1673A1.txt
  • have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Lineville-Clio has not demonstrated a sufficient basis for a waiver of the deadline, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lineville-Clio Community School District, Lineville, Iowa, on January 30, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert McCurdy, Lineville-Clio Community School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1674A1.txt
  • even when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, St. Patrick fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 5, 2002, by St. Patrick School, White Lake, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniel Marsh and Linda Meese, St. Patrick School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1675A1.txt
  • consultants and other representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely applications on its behalf. Here, Weyauwega-Fremont fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed May 22, 2002, by Weyauwega-Fremont High School, Weyauwega, Wisconsin, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gerald Pardun, Weyauwega-Fremont High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 22, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1676A1.txt
  • the Form 470, that a competitive bidding violation had occurred, and that the Academia Form 470 was therefore invalid under Mastermind. Because all six of the funding requests in the Academia Form 471 relied on this invalid Form 470, SLD correctly denied funding for the entire application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Consorcio de Escuelas y Bibliotecas de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Academia Adventista del Oeste, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, on November 29, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1781A1.txt
  • generally justify waiver of filing deadlines. Applicants that wait until the last minute before submitting their appeals risk untimely filing. Because Alameda failed to file a timely appeal, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Alameda's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Alameda County Office of Education, Hayward, California on June 21, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan Arjo, Alameda County Office of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1782A1.txt
  • are unused Funding Year 2000 funds remaining after the second quarter 2003, such funds will be used in subsequent funding years, not Funding Year 2000. Thus, additional funds will not be made available to Funding Year 2000 applicants and we therefore deny Houston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Houston Independent School District on April 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Houston Independent School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1783A1.txt
  • its obligation to guard against the occurrence of errors and fraud. If applicants are permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 18, 2001 by Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Schools and Libraries Division review its treatment of Block 5, pages 2, 3, and 14 from Intelenet's Application Number 201666 and, if warranted, issue a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1784A1.txt
  • groups of entities listed in Block 4 of the application. Therefore, SLD could easily determine from the application what entity or entities would be receiving the requested services. Accordingly, we find that the totality of the circumstances warrant relief and grant in part Marmot's Request for Review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Marmot Library Network, Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado, on July 23, 2001 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and we REMAND this matter to the Administrator for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1785A1.txt
  • for understanding program rules and procedures. Accordingly, the burden of supporting the requested discount level falls on the applicant, School for Language has failed to meet that burden for the funding requests at issue in the instant appeal. Thus, we deny School for Language's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the School for Language and Communication Development on October 18, 2001 IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Schools and Libraries Division review the School for Language and Communication Development's funding commitments for prior funding years and, if warranted, pursue
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1787A1.txt
  • Closter has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Closter's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Closter's initial request, Closter may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 21, 2002 by Closter Board of Education, Closter, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Barbara Mulholland, Closter Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1790A1.txt
  • find that SLD issued an Administrator's Decision on Invoice Deadline Extension Request, approving Lincoln's request for a 60-day extension of the deadline for submission of its invoice number 289253 from the date of the issuance of this decision. Therefore, we dismiss Lincoln's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lincoln School, Dumont, New Jersey, on April 17, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Tarantino, Lincoln School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1791A1.txt
  • Specifically, SLD denied Bartlett Elementary's request for discounts for telecommunications services, Funding Request Number (FRN) 810358. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial and approved in full its request for discounted services. Therefore, we dismiss Bartlett Elementary's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administrative Unit #19, School Administrative, New Hampshire on behalf of Bartlett Elementary School, on May 10, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan R. Ratnoff,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1792A1.txt
  • SLD denied School Administrative's request for discounts for telecommunications services, Funding Request Number (FRN) 810121. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial and approved in full its request for discounted services. Therefore, we dismiss Maple Avenue Elementary's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administrative Unit #19, Goffstown, New Hampshire, on behalf of Maple Avenue Elementary, on May 10, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan R. Ratnoff, School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1793A1.txt
  • Sheldon has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sheldon's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sheldon's initial request, Sheldon may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sheldon Independent School District, Houston, Texas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paul Hill, Sheldon Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 25, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1794A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Tennessee School Board's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Tennessee School Board's initial request, Tennessee School Board may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 11, 2002 by Tennessee School Boards Association, Nashville, Tennessee, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tammy Grissom, Tennessee School Boards Association, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-180A1.txt
  • respect to SLD application number 234939, Alisal Union may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. For these reasons, with respect to SLD application number 234939, we dismiss Alisal Union's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Alisal Union School District, Salinas, California October 12, 2001, IS DENIED IN PART and IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Glenn Della Maggiore, Alisal Union
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-181A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, All Saints' fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by All Saints' Elementary School, Brooklyn, New York on December 28, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-182A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Dixon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dixon Public Library, Dixon, Illinois November 30, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-183A1.txt
  • by an additional 30 days for requests for review, such as the September 14, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter, East Central's October 15, 2001 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant East Central's appeal and direct SLD to review East Central's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by East Central Board of Cooperative Services, Berthoud, Colorado on December 7, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry Parrish, East Central Board of Cooperative Services, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-184A1.txt
  • not occur until SLD acted on Marysville's appeal in its November 28th decision. Because Marysville failed to file an appeal of the October 13, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Marysville's Appeal to SLD as untimely. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Marysville Public Schools, Marysville, Michigan on December 6, 2000 and June 29, 2001 ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia L. Speilburg, Marysville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-185A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Our Lady's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Our Lady's initial appeal, Our Lady may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady Queen of Peace School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 20, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Laurence Mala, Our Lady Queen of Peace School, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-186A1.txt
  • SLD application numbers 248651 and 248803, Strathmore may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. For these reasons, with respect to SLD application numbers 248651 and 248803, we dismiss Strathmore's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Strathmore Union High School, Strathmore, California on September 20, 2001, IS DENIED IN PART and IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Vernon Snodderly, Strathmore Union
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-188A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Westport Edison fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Westport Edison Academy, Kansas City, Missouri on January 3, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-189A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Wheeler fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wheeler Independent School District, Wheeler, Texas on December 10, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1970A1.txt
  • extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 478205, 478207, 478210, and 481289. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Peru's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 478205, 478207, 478210, and 481289. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Peru's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2002, by Peru Central School District, Peru, New York, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bonnie L. Berry, Peru Central School District, Peru, New York, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1971A1.txt
  • fair is still present in this circumstance, deviation from Mastermind would not better serve the public interest. Finally, Dickenson's argument that Mastermind's benefits do not justify its costs is a disagreement with the basic rule of Mastermind, not a special circumstance warranting a deviation from that rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Dickenson County Public Schools, Clintwood, Virginia, on June 3, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Petition for Reconsideration of Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1972A1.txt
  • 471 signed on December 19, 2000 that accompanied East Washington's Request for Review has no bearing because it was never properly filed with SLD. We affirm SLD's decision to reject both of East Washington's FCC Form 471 applications, and, therefore, deny East Washington's Request for Review. 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Washington School Corporation, Pekin, Indiana, on April 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gregory Powell, East Washington School Corporation, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1973A1.txt
  • its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. Here, Inland Lakes fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Inland Lakes Schools, Indian River, Michigan, on June 28, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1974A1.txt
  • and processes thousands of applications each year, and therefore it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant responsibility for complying with the program's rules and procedures. We therefore find that Quincy has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Quincy School District 172, Bloomingdale, Illinois, on August 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Steinberg, Telesolutions Consultants, on behalf of Quincy School District 172, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1975A1.txt
  • well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Chicago Public Schools on June 10, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Funding Year 2001 deadline for installation of non-recurring services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1976A1.txt
  • SOCA expresses concern that SLD intends now to deny the FRN completely. However, SLD has already issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter that, inter alia, awarded funding for FRN 633750 in the amount stated in the RAL. This part of the Request for Review is therefore moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by SouthWest Ohio Computer Association, Hamilton, Ohio, on August 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by SouthWest Ohio Computer Association, CC Docket Nos.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1977A1.txt
  • in FRN 406031, $7,200 of the cost (or 37.5% of the total request) was for ineligible services. SLD therefore properly denied Eureka's funding request because more than 30% of the request was for ineligible services. We thus uphold SLD's funding decision and deny Eureka's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Eureka Unified School District 389, Eureka Kansas, on February 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Leo Davis, Eureka Unified School District 389, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1978A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Illinois School's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Illinois School's initial request, Illinois School may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Illinois School for the Deaf, Jacksonville, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Heinemann, Illinois School for the Deaf, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1979A1.txt
  • applicants submit a signed Block 6 Certification. We find no reason to depart from that standard, and in so doing, we reemphasize that the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided properly rests with the applicants themselves. We therefore deny Watervliet's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 23, 2000, Watervliet School District, Watervliet, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John Heid, Watervliet School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1980A1.txt
  • an agreement with the service provider. By completing and signing the application before the waiting period expired, Wexford-Missaukee effectively indicated that it had ceased consideration of competitive bids, thereby undermining the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We therefore uphold the Administrator's decision and deny Wexford-Missaukee's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wexford-Missaukee Independent School District, Cadillac, Michigan, on October 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynn Bollman, Wexford-Missaukee Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1981A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Jumoke Charter fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jumoke Charter School, Hartford, Connecticut, on June 21, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1982A1.txt
  • incomplete and ineffective, for lack of a certifying signature. Patton Elementary's error was not remedied by the resubmission of a signed application on March 19, 2001, because the deadline for the Funding Year 2001 FCC Form 471 was that it must be postmarked by January 18, 2001. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by General George Patton Elementary School, Riverdale, Illinois, on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert Charnot, General George Patton School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1983A1.txt
  • outside the filing window, it does not have priority status over any requests filed within the filing window. Therefore, we conclude that West Oso has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Oso Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, on January 18, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ruben Corkill, West Oso ISD, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1984A1.txt
  • deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 392767 and 338888. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Pan United's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 392767 and 338888. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Pan United's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 18, 2002, by Pan United Corporation, Edison, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from David Lin, Pan United Corporation, Edison, New Jersey, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1985A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Riverdale requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 421251. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Riverdale's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 421251. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Riverdale's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 20, 2002, by Riverdale School District, Muscoda, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Thomas N. Yager, Riverdale School District, Muscoda, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1986A1.txt
  • general rule. A rule, therefore, may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In the instant case, we conclude that Ellensburg fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 3, 2002, by Ellensburg School District No. 401, Ellensburg, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Baker, Ellensburg School District No. 401, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1991A1.txt
  • in section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 6, 2001, by International Telcom Ltd., IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Anita Cheng Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review by International Telcom Ltd. of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, filed November 6, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2007A1.txt
  • Unlike Arlington, the school system did post a new FCC Form 470 bidding those services. Because we find that Arlington did not post its new contracts for bidding in Funding Year 2001, we find that SLD correctly determined that Arlington had not satisfied the competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Arlington County Department of Libraries, Arlington, Virginia, on September 5, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Ann Friedman, Arlington County Department of Libraries, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2008A1.txt
  • an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Wireline Competition Bureau (previously the Common Carrier Bureau) has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. We, therefore, deny Beulah's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Beulah Public Schools, Beulah, North Dakota, on October 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wilfred Volesky, Beulah Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2009A1.txt
  • and determine what amount of funding, if any, is supported by the new bills and spreadsheets, we remand the application to SLD for consideration of FRN 594956 in light of Carrollton's additional evidence. We affirm, however, that the ultimate burden of proving eligibility remains with the applicant. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District, Farmers Branch, Texas, on March 11, 2002 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Andrew Berning, Carrollton-Farmers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2010A1.txt
  • We also have held that the assertion of financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. We conclude that the circumstances presented by Overton and Chrisman are insufficient to warrant a deviation from the general rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Chrisman Public Library, Chrisman, Illinois, and Overton Public School District, Omaha, Nebraska, on January 16, and April 16, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2011A1.txt
  • the incorrect OMB-approved form. Fair Lawn then filed the instant Request for Review. Fair Lawn again challenges SLD's decision to deny File Number NEC.471.11-19-99.01100003. Because the June 27, 2001 decision disposed of the factual and legal issue, we dismiss Fair Lawn's Request for Review without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fair Lawn Board of Education, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, on January 11, 2002, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joanne Wilson, Fair Lawn Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2012A1.txt
  • any such evidence in the record. As noted above, the two award dates that are supported by the record are both prior to the Kenedy Form 470's allowable contract date. Therefore, we find that SLD correctly concluded that Kenedy did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Kenedy Public Library, Kenedy, Texas, on February 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sylvia Peña, Kenedy Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2013A1.txt
  • appeal of the July 24, 2001 Postcard in the appropriate manner and because its subsequent appeal of the postcard was filed outside the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Elizabeth's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Elizabeth Elementary School, Wilmington, Delaware on January 9, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Stuchlik, Office of Senator Thomas R. Carper on behalf of St. Elizabeth
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2014A1.txt
  • year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. In particular, failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements must result in a denial of support by SLD. The Division, therefore, denies Thomasville's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Thomasville City Schools, Thomasville, Georgia, on January 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James S. Cable, Thomasville City Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed January 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2015A1.txt
  • of Wynot's form, as noted, had the date of September 1999. In addition, as we have stated before, the assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on schools and libraries does not provide grounds for relief from a failure to satisfy program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wynot Public School, Wynot, Nevada, on February 14, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau See Letter from Carol Tramp, Wynot Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, School and Libraries Division,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2016A1.txt
  • still have submitted one of the alternative means of documenting its ability to pay, and obtained copies of its service contracts from Smart Telecom, its service provider. Because Yeshiva did not comply with or even respond to SLD's follow-up documentation requests, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Chasdei Torah, Brooklyn, New York, on April 3, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Aaron Katz, Yeshiva Chasdei Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-223A1.txt
  • substitute a new provider for NTS in their applications. However, changing the service provider from whom they are seeking services will not alter the invalidity of their Forms 470, and thus provide no basis for granting applications based on those Forms 470. We therefore deny the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on behalf of the above-captioned Petitioners on October 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John L. Hampton, Lawrence Kansas, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 6, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2240A1.txt
  • its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeals to SLD if it wishes its appeals to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by The Baltimore Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on June 26, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2241A1.txt
  • inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Brandon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Brandon School, Natick, Massachusetts, on June 13, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2243A1.txt
  • with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Graydon Manor fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Graydon Manor Day School, Sterling, Virginia, on June 25, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2244A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Hardee County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Hardee County's initial request, Hardee County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 22, 2002, by Hardee County School District, Wauchula, Florida, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from C.W. Caligan, Hardee County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2245A1.txt
  • Decision Letter on July 23, 2001. Merely stating that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for granting relief. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on October 15, 2001, by Round Lake Area Schools District #116, Round Lake, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2246A1.txt
  • universal service mechanism. Specifically, Salem requests that its Form 486 be considered as timely filed. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Salem's request to waive the Form 486 and invoicing deadline. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Salem's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 18, 2001, by Salem City School District, Salem, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gary Goldberg, Salem City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2247A1.txt
  • John's requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 439209. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved St. John's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 439209. Accordingly, we dismiss St. John's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 7, 2002, by St. John's County School District, St. Augustine, Florida, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Frank Clark, St. John's County School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2248A1.txt
  • Numbers (FRNs) 407384, 408001, 408250, 408342, and 408648. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved St. Theresa's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 407384, 408001, 408250, 408342, and 408648. Accordingly, we dismiss St. Theresa's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 5, 2002, by St. Theresa of Avila Regional School, Gonzales, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bonita Picou and Jay Sullivan, St. Theresa of Avila
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2249A1.txt
  • the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, West Ottawa fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to the Commission. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 1, 2002, by West Ottawa Public Schools, Holland, Michigan, IS DIMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal with the Commission IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-224A1.txt
  • claim that Georgetown did wait the 28 days required by the Commission's rule before submitting its FCC Form 471. Because there was evidence within the application to support the pending Request for Review, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand Georgetown's application for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 9, 2001, by the Georgetown Public Library, Georgetown Illinois, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Georgetown's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2250A1.txt
  • section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Wilcox failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wilcox County Board of Education, on September 18, 2001, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Malcolm Cain, Wilcox County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2251A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 22, 2002, by A+ Technology Solutions, Inc. on behalf of Deer Park Union Free School District, Deer Park, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2252A1.txt
  • section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Hastings failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2002, by Hastings-On-Hudson UFSD, Hastings-On-Hudson, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Guiney, Hastings-On-Hudson UFSD, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2253A1.txt
  • considered within the window. Applicants that wait until the last minute before submitting their applications risk untimely filing. Here, Scottsdale fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Scottsdale Horizons School, Scottsdale, Arizona, on March 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Judy White, Scottsdale Horizons School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-225A1.txt
  • apportion one of its funding requests, because the service provider no longer provides part of the requested service. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Kingman's request to adjust the funding request. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Kingman's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 24, 2001, by Kingman Unified School District 20, Kingman, Arizona IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alison Mecom, Kingman Unified School District No. 20, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-226A1.txt
  • 592979 and 573899. Mercer County has subsequently withdrawn its appeal of FRN 592979. Further, after reviewing the Funding Commitment Decision Letter issued by SLD, however, we find that SLD has already granted FRN 573899 in the amount requested. We therefore dismiss the pending Request for Review ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County School District, Princeton, West Virginia, on September 5, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, on behalf of Mercer County School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-227A1.txt
  • failure of NWLS to receive its requested discounts for internal connections would cause it hardship. Thus, we find that NWLS has not demonstrated the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules of priority. Therefore, we deny NWLS's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Waters Library Service on April 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jay Moynihan, Northern Waters Library Service, Ashland, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-228A1.txt
  • request for service into two separate FRNs, as it was receiving service from a single provider. It was appropriate for SLD to deny a request for funding for telecommunications services to be provided by a non-telecommunications carrier. We therefore deny Cotulla's Request for Review of FRN 289404. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review of Funding Request Number 289404 filed by the Cotulla Independent School District, Cotulla, Texas on June 14, 2000, IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2342A1.txt
  • it determine at or near the time of the deadline that they will be unable to satisfy the deadline, Danbury may file for an extension at which time Danbury should offer evidence as to how and why it will not be able to comply with the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 27, 2002, by Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Timothy P. Connors, Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2343A1.txt
  • to prepare and file the application, and it is well established that an applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for any errors in an application made by those to whom it has delegated responsibility for the preparation of the application. We therefore deny the Petition for Reconsideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed on July 8, 2002 by the Kimball School District 7-2, Kimball, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Wieland, Kimball School District No. 7-2, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2344A1.txt
  • allowed to submit the corrections after receiving an RAL. However, where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lake Station Community Schools, Lake Station, Indiana, on April 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Dan DeHaven, Lake Station Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2345A1.txt
  • chance to elaborate on its reasoning and to review and address the new assertions made by applicant. This in turn will aid both the applicant and the Commission should Lone Wolf find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lone Wolf Public Schools, Lone Wolf, Oklahoma, on March 4, 2002, is DENIED with respect to FRN 593359, and REMANDED with respect to FRN 593334, and SLD is directed to address and resolve the Request for Review with respect to FRN 593334.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2346A1.txt
  • a chance to elaborate on its reasoning and to review and address the new assertions made by applicant. This in turn will aid both the applicant and the Commission should Picher find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Picher-Cardin Independent School District 15, Picher, Oklahoma, on March 7, 2002 is REMANDED and SLD is directed to address and resolve the Request for Review. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2347A1.txt
  • applicants of errors prior to the close of the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. Therefore, we uphold the Administrator's Decisions on Appeal and deny Bienville's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 5, 2001, by Bienville Parish School Board, Arcadia, Louisiana, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Britt, Bienville Parish School Board, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2348A1.txt
  • bidding. Further, we find that, for the reasons discussed above, the Funding Year 2 funding request also violated our competitive bidding requirements and that funding was granted in error. We therefore direct SLD to adjust this funding commitment in accordance with its established funding commitment adjustment procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan, on April 9, 2001, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2349A1.txt
  • was not a first-time information request in Funding Year 2001. Indeed, Block 4 has been part of the FCC Form 471 for all previous funding years. As a result, because the application was not a first-time request, Wayne is not entitled to relief under the Naperville standard. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, Wayne, Michigan, on August 6, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Letter from Bruce Barrett, Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2352A1.txt
  • Form 471 filing requirements. In light of these facts, we find that the four applicants failed to complete their applications. The Request for Review on behalf of Powhatan School, Botetourt County School District, Isle of Wight County School District, and Newport News Public Schools is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on September 5, 2001, IS DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX A Applicant: Application Number: Prince William County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2353A1.txt
  • signature date on the Airborne Express receipt, the January 18, 2001 signature date on the certifications, and a January 18, 2001 date stamp present on the print-out of certain pages of Good Shepherd's attachments. We therefore find that Good Shepherd did not violate the 28-day bidding period. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Good Shepherd School, Baltimore, Maryland, on February 27, 2002 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further review. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Maggie McCarty, Good Shepherd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2354A1.txt
  • be an improper method of seeking a change of service provider, because it is contrary to the express instructions of SLD on how to make such changes, and because it needlessly places on SLD the full burden and administrative expense of processing and reviewing an entire application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henryetta Public Schools, Henryetta, Oklahoma, on February 25, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Dan Edwards, Henryetta Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2363A1.txt
  • applications that SLD must review and process each funding year, we believe it administratively appropriate for SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines and requirements. Weathersfield has failed to demonstrate the merits of its Request for Review. We therefore deny Weathersfield's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 19, 2002 by Weathersfield Local Schools, Mineral Ridge, Ohio IS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Weathersfield Local Schools, Mineral Ridge, Ohio, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2412A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on August 31, 2002, by Arcata Elementary School District, Arcata, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Matt Malkus, Arcata Elementary School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 31,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2413A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 9, 2002, by Chatham Area Public Library, Chatham, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John M. Shimkus, Member of Congress, 20th District, Illinois, on behalf of Linda
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2414A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 3, 2002, by Kent County Public Schools, Chestertown, Maryland, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Stephen J. Wilson, Kent County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2415A1.txt
  • Lone Wolf requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 340337. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Lone Wolf's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 340337. Accordingly, we dismiss Lone Wolf's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 9, 2002, by Lone Wolf Public Schools, Lone Wolf, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Sutherland, Lone Wolf Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2416A1.txt
  • Clay requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 430711. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Red Clay's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 430711. Accordingly, we dismiss Red Clay's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed May 20, 2002, by Red Clay School District, Dover, Delaware, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kay R. Buck, Red Clay School District, Dover, Delaware, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2417A1.txt
  • be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRNs) 359426, 359488, and 359560. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved South Lane's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 359426, 359488, and 359560. Accordingly, we dismiss South Lane's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 25, 2002, by South Lane School District, Cottage Grove, Oregon, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Scott Baker, South Lane School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2418A1.txt
  • that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 353235. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Twin Rivers District's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 353235. Accordingly, we dismiss Twin Rivers District's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed May 10, 2002, by Twin Rivers District Public Library, Colona, Illinois, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Christine Rugh, Twin Rivers District Public Library, Colona, Illinois, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2419A1.txt
  • for Funding Request Number (FRN) 394147 because of difficulties with its selected service provider. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Middle Country's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 394147. Accordingly, we dismiss Middle Country's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 8, 2002, by Middle Country Public Library, Centereach, New York, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandra Feinberg, Middle Country Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2420A1.txt
  • Year 2000 application, FRNs 418862, 419213, 420532, and 419110. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Nelson County's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 418862, 419213, 420532, and 419110. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Nelson County's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Nelson County Public Schools, on April 9, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from W. Ernest Worley, Nelson County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2459A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission and SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 31, 2002, by Bullitt County School District, Shepherdsville, Kentucky, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Jay Swigart, Bullitt County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2529A1.txt
  • it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Chicago Public Schools fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2531A1.txt
  • or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Des Moines has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed April 2, 2002 by Des Moines Public Schools, Des Moines, Iowa, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Greg Davis, Des Moines Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated April 2, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2532A1.txt
  • Baton Rouge's application to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order, and instruct SLD to issue an appropriate Funding Commitment Decision Letter, if otherwise appropriate. However, we make no determination as to whether East Baton Rouge is ultimately entitled to the discounts requested in its application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Baton Rouge Parish Library on August 10, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and East Baton Rouge's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2533A1.txt
  • have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Jewish Educational Center's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jewish Educational Center, Elizabeth, New Jersey, on August 6, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Evelyn C. Wolgin, Jewish Educational Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2534A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Johnson fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Johnson Elementary School, Johnson, Vermont on October 15, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2535A1.txt
  • analysis. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with our rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Hancock County has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances sufficient to warrant a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Hancock County Public Library, Sneedville, Tennessee, on July 30, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Floyd W. Rhea, Hancock County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2536A1.txt
  • behalf, even when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, Homer-Center fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Homer-Center School District, Homer City, Pennsylvania, on August 9, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2537A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 19, 2002, by Indianapolis Marion County Public Library, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Edward M. Szynaka, Indianapolis Marion County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2538A1.txt
  • timely submission of its application. Neither staffing problems nor misunderstanding relieves applicants of their responsibility to understand the program and comply with its rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Lincoln County has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 30, 2002, by Lincoln County Board of Education, Hamlin, West Virginia, IS DISMISSED and the Request for Waiver is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Birdie Gandy, Lincoln
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2539A1.txt
  • order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Maria L. Varisco-Rogers Charter School, Inc., Newark, New Jersey, on August 26, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2540A1.txt
  • for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Paloma and Sentinel failed to file an appeal of their July 26, 2001 Funding Year 2001 Form 471 Rejection Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we deny their Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 20, 2001 by Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, on behalf of Mobile Elementary School District 86, Maricopa, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2541A1.txt
  • a new superintendent and a new person handling the E-Rate application process.'' However, we have consistently held that personnel disruptions, employee medical conditions, or employee confusion or misunderstanding about SLD rules and deadlines do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Nederland Independent School District, Nederland, Texas, and Wells Central School District, Wells, New York, on March 1 and March 15, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2543A1.txt
  • its appeals if it wishes them to be considered on the merits. Here, Pajaro Valley fails to present good cause why it could not timely file its appeals. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the deadline for the filing of Pajaro Valley's appeal with SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and Waiver filed on February 28 and May 6, 2002, by Pajaro Valley Unified School District, Watsonville, California, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2545A1.txt
  • evidence supports Salina's claim that it did wait the 28 days required by the Commission's rule before submitting its FCC Form 471. Therefore, based on the evidence in the record, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD's decision and remand Salina's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 11, 2001, by Salina Independent School District 16, Salina, Oklahoma, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Salina's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2546A1.txt
  • is not a defense to failing to submit the Item 21 Attachment. Applicants cannot tailor-make their own version of FCC Form 471 by failing to include a copy of a bill or other documentation setting forth a description of the services for which discounts are requested. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Scott County Public Library, Georgetown Kentucky, on March 4, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Smith, Scott County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, dated March 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2549A1.txt
  • seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Yeshivat's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshivat Ohel Torah, Brooklyn, New York, on August 1, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Chana Bandman and Rabbi Cohen, Yeshivat Ohel Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2565A1.txt
  • TEL application with Forsyth's NET application. We find that SLD's error resulted in the denial of Forsyth's TEL application. We therefore remand Forsyth's application to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order. However, we make no determination as to whether Forsyth is ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 18, 2001, by Forsyth County Library, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Forsyth's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2566A1.txt
  • also is consistent with the Commission's finding in the Non-Recurring Services Order that external circumstances, such as delayed funding decisions, can create situations where deadlines are both impractical and unreasonable. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company, on behalf of the Lynwood Unified School District, Lynwood, California, on April 19, 2002 IS GRANTED to the extent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2731A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Escuela Manuel Corchado's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Escuela Manuel Corchado's initial request, Escuela Manuel Corchado may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 11, 2002, by Escuela Manuel Corchado, Isabela, Puerto Rico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Aura Alfaro, Escuela Manuel Corchado, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-281A1.txt
  • it was not eligible for discounted internal connections in Funding Year 3. Thus, whether SLD treated Columbia's missing FCC Form 470 number properly is immaterial in the instant case because Columbia would not have qualified for internal connections. As a result, we deny Columbia's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 26, 2001 by Columbia Heights Public Schools, Columbia Heights, Minnesota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Denise Mergens, Columbia Heights Public Schools, Columbia Heights, Minnesota, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2829A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 2, 2002, by Akron-Fairgrove Schools, Fairgrove, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Brelsford, Akron-Fairgrove Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 2, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-282A1.txt
  • determine whether Flagler has received discounted telecommunications service from TFC in the past, as it alleges. Assuming that this is true, it is not grounds for relief, as the relevant question is whether Flagler is currently seeking discounts on telecommunications services that are provided by telecommunications carriers. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Flagler County School District, Bunnell, Florida, on May 1, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louise Hurd, Flagler County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 1, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2830A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with SLD or the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 18, 2002, by Alexandria City Public Schools, Alexandria, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John D. Johnson, III, Alexandria City Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2831A1.txt
  • when it filed its FCC Form 471. Nothing in this Order prevents Aurora Weier from appealing the August 30, 2002 Funding Commitment Decision Letter to SLD within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the August 30, 2002 Funding Commitment Decision Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aurora Weier Educational Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on March 18, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Emilio Lopez, Aurora Weier Educational Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2832A1.txt
  • that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because Bayliss's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bayliss Public Library, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, on September 3, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Janus Storey, Bayliss Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2834A1.txt
  • requests pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Goose Creek's Requests for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Goose Creek's initial requests, Goose Creek may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, Bayton, Texas, on July 3, 2002 in connection with SLD Application No. 316961, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, Bayton, Texas,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2835A1.txt
  • Libraries filing window. However, since the Request for Waiver was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial and issued a Form 471 Receipt Acknowledgement Letter stating that Winans Academy FCC Form 471 was received and was successfully data entered. Therefore, we dismiss Winans Academy's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Marvin L. Winans Academy, Detroit, Michigan, on August 19, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tony Mottley, Marvin L. Winans Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2836A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss South Cook's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on South Cook's initial request, South Cook may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 11, 2002, by South Cook Educational Consortium, Riverdale, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tobin A. Mitchell, South Cook Educational Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2837A1.txt
  • not file an FCC Form 470 to request funding for month-to-month service. Thus, Petitioners failed to comply with our competitive bidding requirements and SLD properly denied funding beyond the period specified in Petitioners' service agreement. We therefore, affirm SLD's funding decision, and deny Petitioners' Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services, Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of Craven County Public School System on June 1, 2001, and Nash County-Rocky Mount Public School System on May 31, 2001, and the Request for Review filed by Whiteville City
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2838A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 27, 2002, by Sweetwater Union High School District, Chula Vista, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Clark, Sweetwater Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2839A1.txt
  • funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. In particular, failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements must result in a denial of support by SLD. We, therefore, deny Timbuktu's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Timbuktu Academy of Science and Technology, on December 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gloria House, Timbuktu Academy of Science and Technology, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-283A1.txt
  • new facts. Moreover, a party may not base a petition for reconsideration on new facts that were available to it at the time of its original request for review. As a result, Houghton Lake's petition for reconsideration is subject to dismissal as repetitious pursuant to Section 1.106(b)(3). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Houghton Lake Public Library, Houghton Lake, Michigan on August 18, 1999 is DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donna J. Alward, Houghton Lake Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 18, 1999 (Petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2970A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 16, 2002, by U.S.D. 468 - Healy Public Schools, Healy, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Reece, U.S.D. 468 - Healy Public Schools, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2971A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Holy Redeemer failed to file an appeal of the June 3, 2002 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 60-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Holy Redeemer's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Holy Redeemer Catholic School, Alpharetta, Georgia on October 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Laura Burell, Holy Redeemer Catholic School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2972A1.txt
  • its appeals if it wishes them to be considered on the merits. Here, Blessed Sacrament fails to present good cause why it could not timely file its appeals. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the deadline for the filing of Blessed Sacrament's appeal with SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Blessed Sacrament Catholic School, Newark, New Jersey on October 8, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Scott DeCarolis, Blessed Sacrament Catholic School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2973A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 16, 2002, by Portsmouth School Department, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Edward Stokel, Portsmouth School Department, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 16, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2974A1.txt
  • Gentry has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Gentry's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Gentry's initial request, Gentry may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 4, 2002 by Gentry Public Schools, Gentry, Arkansas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joni Wilson, Gentry Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-302A1.txt
  • Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), denying their request for discounted services. On January 11, 2002, the above-captioned entities filed Requests to Withdraw their Requests for Review. The Division grants the above-captioned entities' Withdrawal Requests and, accordingly, dismisses the above-captioned entities' Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Withdrawal Request submitted by Barbour County School District, Philippi, West Virginia, filed January 11, 2002; Berkeley County School District, Martinsburg, West Virginia, filed January 11, 2002; Fayette County School District, Fayetteville, West Virginia, filed January 11, 2002; Lewis County School District, Weston, West Virginia, filed January 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-303A1.txt
  • their applications were not filed with SLD by the deadline for priority funding in Funding Year 4. However, since their Requests for Review were filed, SLD has granted the relief that each of the above-captioned entities sought. Accordingly, we dismiss the above-captioned Requests for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Bethel School District #52, Eugene, Oregon, filed August 24, 2001; Heartland Community Schools, Henderson, Nebraska, filed August 21, 2001; Henderson County Public Library, Henderson, Kentucky, filed August 31, 2001; Teays Valley Local School District, Ashville, Ohio, filed September 4, 2001; Wetzel County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3041A1.txt
  • to run before filing the FCC Form 471. Additional information on the web site clearly indicated that FCC Form 471 must be filed within a certain filing window. We conclude that CCS has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Center City School, Salt Lake City, Utah on May 15, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Ramsay, Center City School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3042A1.txt
  • certification was mailed. The mere fact that it submitted certifications in previous years does not support the conclusion that it did so in Funding Year 2001. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the City School District of New Rochelle, New Rochelle, New York on February 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Liz D'Amico, City School District of New Rochelle,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3043A1.txt
  • know the Commission's rules and procedures, and that the funding is needed. As noted above, we have not found either need of the funds or employee misunderstanding as sufficient grounds for a waiver of the Commission rules in the past. We therefore deny Pottsgrove's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Duncan Public Library, Duncan, Arizona, on April 16, 2002; Mid Peninsula School, Rock, Michigan, on April 23, 2002; Neches Independent School District, Neches, Texas, on April 22, 2002; and Pottsgrove School District, Pottstown, Pennsylvania, on April 24, 2002 ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3044A1.txt
  • rules and procedures. Furthermore, we have rejected arguments based upon claims that SLD staff provided the incorrect information to applicants. After reviewing the material before us, we conclude that High Bridge has failed to demonstrate the special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by High Bridge Board of Education, High Bridge, New Jersey, on May 20, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from, Anthony Juskiewicz, High Bridge Board of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3045A1.txt
  • them for the application process. Instead, the program has one main filing window, and all who would apply for discounts through this program must apply within that time-frame. We conclude that Kearney has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Kearney Public Schools, Kearney, Nebraska, on June 13, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Karl Yeutter, Kearney Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 13, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3046A1.txt
  • filing window resulting from the need to file a corrected application after a minimum processing standards rejection is not a special circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We conclude that the circumstances presented by Marin County are insufficient to warrant a deviation from the general rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Marin County Office of Education, San Rafael, California, on June 3, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Jane Burke, Mari County Office of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3047A1.txt
  • other pages, we find that the form should not be rejected for failure to satisfy the minimum processing standard requirement of submission on the correct OMB-approved form. We therefore grant the Request for Review and remand the application to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Seattle School District 1, Seattle, Washington, on August 24, 2001 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further review. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dugal Easton, Seattle
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3048A1.txt
  • Furthermore, a special pop-up notice appeared for online filers at the start of the online application process, and again after the applicant clicked on the ``Submit'' button. We conclude that South Side has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by South Side Area School District, Hookstown, Pennsylvania, on April 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lori P. Byron, South Side Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3049A1.txt
  • 2002. Thus, the Appeal to SLD, filed on March 22, 2002, was filed within 60 days of the decision, and is timely under the Commission's rules. As a result, we reverse the dismissal for untimeliness, and remand to SLD for consideration Talmud Torah's appeal on the merits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Talmud Torah of Lakewood, Lakewood, New Jersey, on April 23, 2002, IS GRANTED, and the Appeal to SLD is REMANDED for further consideration on the merits. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-304A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Peach Public Libraries' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Peach Public Libraries' initial request, Peach Public Libraries may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Peach Public Libraries, Fort Valley, Georgia, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gilda E. Stanbery-Cotney, Peach Public Libraries, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 24, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3050A1.txt
  • run before filing the FCC Form 471. Additional information on the website clearly indicated that FCC Form 471 must be filed within a certain filing window. Windham has failed to support its contention that it followed the proper directions for filing the material within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Windham Public Library, Windham, New York, on June 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donna Pidgeon, Windham Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 10, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3051A1.txt
  • should Randolph County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRNs 555797 and 555870 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to the merits of these appeals. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 4, 2001 by the Randolph County School District, Elkins, West Virginia, IS REMANDED as to FRNs 555797 and 555870 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3052A1.txt
  • is clear from the documents submitted with its Request for Review that they were responsive. We find further that the ``completed'' notation on the faxed copy from SLD does not excuse Webster County for its failure to respond. Under SLD's seven-day procedure, it correctly denied FRN 592113. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Braxton County School District, Sutton, West Virginia, on September 5, 2001, the Request for Review filed by Summers County School District, Hinton, West Virginia, on September 17, 2001, and the Request for Review filed by Webster County School District, on August 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3053A1.txt
  • the applicant and the Commission should Boone County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRN 543275 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to its merits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boone County School District, Madison, County IS DENIED as to FRN 590131 and REMANDED as to FRN 543275 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3054A1.txt
  • work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of complete and accurate application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Because Brooke County provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information during the initial seven-day filing period, we affirm SLD's decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Brooke County School District, Wellsburg, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Brooke County School District to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3055A1.txt
  • work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of complete and accurate application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Because Greenbrier County provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information, we affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 4, 2001 by the Greenbrier County School District, Lewisburg, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Greenbrier County School District to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3056A1.txt
  • the late information, and therefore correctly denied the funding requests. Finally, the fact that SLD did not seek specific information regarding Jefferson County in its July 16, 2001 correspondence is irrelevant, because the seven-day time frame for providing additional documentation had long since expired at that point. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Jefferson County School District, Charles Town, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Jefferson County School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3057A1.txt
  • In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of complete and accurate application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Because Monroe County provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information, we affirm SLD's decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Monroe County School District, Union, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Monroe County School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3058A1.txt
  • the applicant and the Commission should Boone County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRN 562918 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to its merits. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Nicholas County School District, Summersville, West Virginia, IS DENIED as to FRN 592051 and REMANDED as to FRN 543275 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3059A1.txt
  • and therefore was or should have been aware of "the need to carefully segregate its service requests'' for Priority One and Priority Two services. The lack of discussion in the FCC Form 471 Instructions of the Priority review procedure does not, therefore, warrant relief from that procedure. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shepherd Independent School District, Shepherd, Texas, on January 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Shepherd Independent School District to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 29, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-305A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Clair's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Clair's initial request, St. Clair may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Clair County Board of Education, Ashville, Alabama, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Darren W. Anglin, St. Clair County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3060A1.txt
  • during application review, it asserted that there was no such contract. St. Joseph may not submit new evidence in an application for review to correct that error. Therefore, substantially for the reasons stated by SLD in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Joseph High School, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, on January 17, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Roy D. Roberts, St. Joseph High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3061A1.txt
  • of the services does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Tripp has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we must deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Tripp County Library, Winner, South Dakota, on March 6, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandra Hansen, Tripp County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-306A1.txt
  • own error or misunderstanding of the rules. Subiaco has not offered any reason other than misunderstanding of the rules for why the deadline should be waived in this case. We therefore conclude that Subiaco has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Timmie Geels, Subiaco Academy, Subiaco, Arkansas, on January 23, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Timmie Geels, Subiaco Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 23, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3078A1.txt
  • not have prevented SLD from data entering Litchfield's application. We note that, under current minimum processing standards for Block 1, applicants are required only to include (1) the name of the Billed Entity or the Entity Number; (2) the Funding Year; and (3) the Contact Person Name. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Litchfield Public Schools Independent School District No. 465, Litchfield, Minnesota, on July 11, 2001 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED for further review consistent with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3157A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 17, 2002, by Grand Valley Public Library, Orwell, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Evans, Grand Valley Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3158A1.txt
  • its appeal to the Commission, provide information for three of the required items, Norwood failed to provide the fourth item-a detailed description as noted above. Therefore, Norwood did not submit a proper Item 21 Attachment, and did not complete its FCC Form 471 by the application deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Norwood R-I School District Norwood, Missouri, on March 26, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jimmie Lee Marler, Norwood R-I School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3159A1.txt
  • that this SLD procedure is applicable to the general case, it is not the standard of review that SLD applies to the specific context of requests for corrections that increase funding. Rather, SLD flatly prohibits such corrections, and as noted, the Bureau has repeatedly upheld this prohibition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Oklahoma City Public Schools, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on September 5, 2001 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Oklahoma City Public Schools, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on December 5, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3160A1.txt
  • upon receipt. SLD misapplied the rule in its Administrator's Decision on Appeal Letters. We find the applicant complied with the 60 day time period for filing its appeals with SLD. Therefore, we grant Winnebago's Request for Review and remand the above-captioned applications to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winnebago Public Schools, Winnebago, Nebraska, on December 12, 2001, IS GRANTED and the above-captioned applications ARE REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard B. Peterson,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3161A1.txt
  • to complete an on-line application is not a circumstance excusing the omission in its manually-filed application. Further, we have repeatedly found that the financial need of applicants is not a circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wm. H. & Lucy F. Rand Memorial Library, Troy, Vermont, on April 8, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Allen, Wm. H. & Lucy F. Rand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3162A1.txt
  • in violation of the Commission's rules. Roanoke states that it was nevertheless awarded funds for this service in Funding Year 1999 (though not in Funding Year 2000). We therefore direct SLD to initiate commitment adjustment procedures in connection with the appropriate Funding Year 1999 Internet access requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Roanoke Rapids Graded School District, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, on January 2, 2002 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3163A1.txt
  • waive regulatory requirements, it does not have authority to waive a requirement imposed by statute. The October 28, 2001 deadline for CIPA certifications in Funding Year 2001 is statutory. Because the October 28, 2001 deadline is established by statute, we are without authority to waive it. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by St. Helen School, Howard Beach, New York on April 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Anne Badalamenti, St. Helen School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3211A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Waiver was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on October 29, 2002, by Buffalo School District 877, Buffalo, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert Berry, Buffalo School District 877, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3212A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Waiver was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on October 24, 2002, by Petersburg Public Library, Petersburg, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rachel Cole, Petersburg Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 24, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3249A1.txt
  • body of law that holds that, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, ``a signature may be made for a person by the hand of another,'' and that signature is as valid as it would be if it were written by the authorizing person. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Charleston County School District, Charleston, South Carolina, on August 29, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this matter is remanded to the Administrator for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jon Ostendorf, Charleston County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3250A1.txt
  • light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information to SLD in its FCC Form 471 and during the subsequent review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Colorado City Public Library, Colorado City, Arizona, on March 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Facsimile from Dennis Darger, Colorado City Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 29, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3253A1.txt
  • Administrative Company. Since the Petition for Reconsideration was filed, however, the Bureau issued an Order reversing its prior Order. Kalamazoo then filed a Motion for Withdrawal of its Petition for Reconsideration. Kalamazoo's Petition for Reconsideration is therefore dismissed as moot and its Motion for Withdrawal is granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan, on November 4, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot and its Motion for Withdrawal filed on November 7, 2002, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3254A1.txt
  • such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, St. Mary High School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 16, 2002, by St. Mary High School, Jersey City, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3255A1.txt
  • with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Sullins fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to the FCC. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sullins Academy, Bristol, Virginia, on October 3, 2002, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3256A1.txt
  • It is well established, however, that an applicant is not entitled to relief merely because an application is rejected after the period for submitting a new application has passed. The burden of ensuring that an application is complete and accurate properly rests with the applicants themselves. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by City of Newport News, Newport News, Virginia, on January 23, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ed Maroney, City of Newport News, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3257A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Davidson County failed to file an appeal of the July 17, 2001 Pink Postcard within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Davidson County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Davidson County Schools, Lexington, North Carolina on October 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sue Whitman, Davidson County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 10, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3258A1.txt
  • made by applicant will enhance and benefit the record and thus aid both Grant and the Commission in the event that Grant's appeal is denied and Grant finds it appropriate to seek further review from the Commission. Therefore, we remand the appeal to SLD for its consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Grant Joint Union High School District, Sacramento, California, on January 11, 2002 is REMANDED and SLD is directed to address and resolve the Request for Review as if it were an appeal to SLD. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3259A1.txt
  • program rules and application requirements. Because applications may change from year to year, we find that applicants bear the responsibility of determining whether or not the complete and correct form is being used. We conclude that Foyil should have determined that it was using the wrong application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Foyil Public Schools, Foyil, Oklahoma, on January 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael McGregor, Foyil Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 28, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3291A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 26, 2002, by Wayne County Public School, Goldsboro, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sprunt Hill, Wayne County Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3365A1.txt
  • and remand for further review of the funding request consistent with this decision. In so doing, we do not intimate that Nassau County will receive the funding it has requested. Ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the request for review filed on April 3, 2000, by the Nassau County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Westbury, New York, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application for discounts filed by the Nassau County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Westbury, New York, is REMANDED to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3366A1.txt
  • Carroll asserts that the CIPA deadline should not be imposed on applicants seeking only discounts on telecommunications services. To the extent that East Carroll seeks a waiver on this basis, we reject the argument because, as noted above, East Carroll also received discounts on Internet access. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by East Carroll Parish School Board, Lake Providence, Louisiana on January 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Facsimile from Helen Millikin, East Carol Parish School Board, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3367A1.txt
  • date of the statute. Because Republic County was receiving discounts on Internet access, and was therefore subject to the October 28, 2001 deadline imposed by the CIPA statute, we are without authority to waive that deadline in this case, and the Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Republic County Unified School District No. 427, Belleville, Kansas, on May 20, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Larry Lysell, Republic Unified School District No. 427, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-341A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Addison fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Addison Northeast Supervisory Union, Bristol, Vermont, on January 23, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-342A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Granger fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeals to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadlines. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Granger School District No. 204, Granger, Washington on December 11, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file these appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-343A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Mulberry fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mulberry Elementary School District, Brawley, California, on January 9, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-344A1.txt
  • efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Newtown fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore must deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Newtown Public Schools, Newtown, Connecticut, on March 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John R. Reed, Newtown Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 30, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-345A1.txt
  • 28 days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. For these reasons, we deny Pend Oreille's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pend Oreille County Library District, Newport, Washington, on May 21, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pend Oreille County Library District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 21, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-346A1.txt
  • its position that cache servers should be eligible as internal connections. However, the 30 day period of time for seeking reconsideration of the Tennessee Order has expired. Therefore, we find that, under the Tennessee Order, SLD correctly denied funding for cache servers requested in the pending application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Prince George's County Public Schools, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, on October 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Siefert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Orin R. Heend, Funds for Learning, L.L.C., on behalf of Prince George's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3471A1.txt
  • in the official record supporting Horizon's assertion that it did not receive the Funding Commitment Decision Letters. Moreover, Horizon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeals to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on October 25, 2002, by Horizon Science Academy, Cleveland, Ohio ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sedat Duman,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3472A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 18, 2002, by St. Bernadette School, Seattle, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Marie Colarossi, St. Bernadette School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 18, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3473A1.txt
  • description of services in FRN 419287 was so ambiguous that it should have prompted SLD to seek further information on the proper breakdown of costs pursuant to its policy, we must affirm SLD's determination that the amount of ineligible services is 30% or more of the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Atlantic City School District, Atlantic City, New Jersey, on April 25, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jonathan Jones, Atlantic City Public School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-347A1.txt
  • it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, St. Francis Xavier fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Francis Xavier School, Acushnet, Massachusetts, on December 11, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-348A1.txt
  • NSLP, or 74.038%, and is therefore entitled under the discount matrix to a discount rate of only 80 percent. Because schools with less than an 85% discount rate were ineligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 4, we find that SLD correctly denied the two FRNs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Upshur County School District, Buckhannon, West Virginia, on September 4, 2001 IS DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of Upshur County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-349A1.txt
  • different service provider, because the original service provider no longer provides part of the requested service. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Shawnee Mission's request to adjust the funding request. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Shawnee Mission's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2001, by Shawnee Mission, Overland Park, Kansas IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rich Cavallaro, Shawnee Mission Public Schools, Overland Park, Kansas, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3508A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 26, 2002, by Kanawha County School District, Cleveland, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Kanawha County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3509A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Mescalero fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mescalero Apache School, Mescalero, New Mexico, on October 30, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-350A1.txt
  • window. However, since the Requests for Review were filed, SLD has issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal informing Chester that its appeal has brought forward persuasive information and that its request will be reviewed and considered for funding. Chester's Requests for Review are therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Chester Community Charter School, Media, Pennsylvania, on August 21 and 27, 2001 ARE DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pete Idstein, Chester Community Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3510A1.txt
  • have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Midlothian Independent's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on November 12, 2002, by Midlothian Independent School District, Midlothian, Texas, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kirk Paschall, Midlothian Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-351A1.txt
  • 471 before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. Genesis' Request for Review is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Genesis Catholic Elementary School, on April 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol A. Smith, Genesis Catholic Elementary School, Detroit, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-352A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Melrose Area fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Melrose Area High School, Melrose, Minnesota on January 17, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-353A1.txt
  • Administrative Company (Administrator). Rockdale seeks review of SLD's denial of Rockdale's request to have discounted internet access for Funding Year 4. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Rockdale is seeking. Rockdale's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rockdale Independent School District, Rockdale, Texas, on August 22, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marcia J. Proctor, Rockdale Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-354A1.txt
  • the Commission has found that it cannot accept unsupported arguments that mailed letters were never received. Here, Telfair fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Telfair County School District, McRae, Georgia on December 3, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-387A1.txt
  • of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. This policy imposes upon applicants the responsibility of preparing its applications carefully. For that reason, we deny Centerville's request to amend its FCC Form 471 subsequent to the filing window for Funding Year 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001, by Centerville School District, Centerville, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Doug Voss, Centerville School District, Centerville, South Dakota, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-388A1.txt
  • its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. Here, East Alton fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Alton-Wood River Community High School, Wood River, Illinois on January 2, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-389A1.txt
  • in section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed November 27, 2001, by Huntington Union Free School District, Huntington, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney, A+ Technology Solutions, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-390A1.txt
  • under program rules, cellular telephone service is not eligible for discounts to facilitate the transportation of students to and from schools. Therefore, we affirm the Administrator's finding that more than thirty percent of NESC's funding request is for ineligible uses and we deny NESC's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 17, 2000, by Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, Hayti, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lawrence L. Furney, Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-391A1.txt
  • it is not necessary for us to determine whether the application bore an original, ink signature because even if the signature was a photocopy or stamp, Preston's application should not have been rejected. Therefore, we grant Preston's Request for Review and instruct SLD to process Preston's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Preston County Schools, Kingwood, West Virginia, on March 26, 2001, IS GRANTED and that Preston's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-392A1.txt
  • Block 6 certification was postmarked on January 18, 2001, and was therefore eligible to be considered within the filing window. As a result, we find that Taft's Block 6 certification page was timely filed and remand this application to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Taft Independent School District, Taft, Texas, on July 6, 2001 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Madden, Taft Independent School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-393A1.txt
  • is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including the procedures governing the use of the state replacement contract SPIN. Therefore, we decline to grant relief on the grounds that Ursuline Academy received incorrect information from SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ursuline Academy, New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 4, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Elizabeth S. Hatzenbuehler, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 4, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-394A1.txt
  • SLD's ability to accurately predict the total amount of Priority One services requested in a year as required to apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Grand Island's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the School District of Grand Island, Grand Island, Nebraska, on March 14, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sue Burch, School District of Grand Island, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-396A1.txt
  • the terms of its financing agreement with Ameritech Credit. Accordingly, we direct SLD to reconsider Schaumburg's Year 2 funding request and determine to what extent Schaumburg is entitled to universal service funding in Program Year 2 for services obtained pursuant to its multi-year contract with Ameritech Credit. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Schaumburg Community Consolidated School District 54 (Schaumburg) of Schaumburg, Illinois, on April 20, 2000, IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for further processing pursuant to this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-40A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-40A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-40A1.txt
  • 3 application prior to January 19, 2000, and was not eligible for ``in-window'' consideration for Year 3 universal service support, and thus its Request for Review must be denied. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on March 3, 2000 by the Atlanta Adventist Academy HS, Atlanta, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rachel Burg, Atlanta Adventist Academy HS, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 3, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-428A1.txt
  • Year 2. SLD denied Laurel School's request because its FCC Form 471 did not meet SLD's minimum processing standards. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Laurel School is seeking. Laurel School's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Laurel School, Cleveland, Ohio, on August 15, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, on behalf of Laurel School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-429A1.txt
  • schools in the school district to the Internet, and are thus eligible under the Fourth Order on Reconsideration. We therefore vacate SLD's denial of FRN 356779 and remand for a new determination, consistent with this opinion, of the percentage of FRN 356779 that is ineligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bassett Unified School District, La Puente, California, on May 30, 2001, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-430A1.txt
  • By opening the door to additional evidence relating to the technology plan, SLD was obligated to wait until the agreed upon deadline to complete their review of the appeal. As a result, we find that it is appropriate to remand FRN 430758 to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Milford School District on March 28, 2001 IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kay
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-431A1.txt
  • properly categorized the request as internal connections. In Funding Year 3, only applicants with a discount rate of at least 82% were entitled to discounted internal connections. Because Ohio PLIN was entitled to a discount of only 53%, we conclude that SLD correctly denied FRN 399128. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ohio Public Library Information Network, Columbus, Ohio, on April 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Lynne Roddy, Ohio Public Library Information Network, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-432A1.txt
  • see no inequity in requiring applicants to include sufficient time in their application process to accommodate the rules of both state and federal authorities. In addition, we find that New York schools have generally not been prevented from obtaining discounts by the requirements of New York regulations. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pearl River School District, Pearl River, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ben Carosi, Pearl River Public School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 30, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-433A1.txt
  • its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window, and must assume responsibility for the actions of those to whom it delegates authority for program filings. Here, Springdale fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Springdale Public Schools, Springdale, Arkansas, on May 14, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim Rollins, Springdale Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 14, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-434A1.txt
  • 14 digits. We find that SLD rejected St. Edward's application because no FCC Form 470 Application number was listed. Thus, in accordance with our decision in the Pediatric Library Order, we remand St. Edward's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this order. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the St. Edward on the Lake School, on April 2, 2001, IS GRANTED, and its application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Helen Casper, St.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-436A1.txt
  • examine its rules governing the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism in order to ensure its continued efficient and effective operation. E-Rate Central is free to raise this proposal in the context of the rulemaking. We therefore deny this part of the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by E-Rate Central, Plandome, New York, on behalf of St. Patrick's Academy, Catskill, New York, on March 26, 2001, IS DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-437A1.txt
  • not present. Further, Laguna has failed to submit contrary evidence sufficient to persuade us that the missing page is due to the fault of SLD. We therefore find that Laguna did not submit a complete application and affirm SLD's rejection of the application on that basis. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Laguna Salada Union Elementary School District, Pacifica, California, on July 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Josephine Peterson, Laguna Salada Union School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-438A1.txt
  • the PC Cards, raising the total cost of ineligible services to 33% of the total service. Lunenburg has presented no information that would suggest that the attribution of 33% of the installation costs to the PC Cards was incorrect. Accordingly, as explained above, we affirm SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lunenburg County Public Schools, Victoria, Virginia, on May 17, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marie Gee, Lunenburg County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-439A1.txt
  • and capricious manner. Indeed, SLD merely determined an independent basis for its denial, which is not necessarily exclusive from other, equally valid grounds for denial, such as the use of the wrong OMB-approved FCC Form 471. We therefore conclude that Tallulah's Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tallulah Academy-Delta Christian School on August 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Beach, Tallulah Academy-Delta Christian School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 13, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-440A1.txt
  • incorrect form and then return to the applicant to collect missing information required in the Year 4 FCC Form 471 and obtain certifications using the correct language. Therefore, applicants properly have the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct OMB-approved forms. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Southwest Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, on July 25, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James E. McNamara, Southwest Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-477A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, West Harrison fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by West Harrison Community School District, Mondamin, Iowa on January 8, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-478A1.txt
  • Schools and Libraries filing window. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal, informing Winchester that its appeal has brought forward persuasive information that its funding requests should be reviewed. Winchester's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winchester Public Schools, Winchester, Virginia, on September 5, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steven R. Muller, Winchester Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 5, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-479A1.txt
  • have to grant similar relief to other entities that made similar mistakes, which would in turn increase administrative burdens for SLD. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Edgewood has failed to make a showing warranting relief and that its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed by Edgewood Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, on July 24, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Ochoa, Edgewood Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-480A1.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Green Bay has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2001 by Green Bay Area Public Schools, Green Bay, Wisconsin IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Danielle A. Nerad, Green Bay Area Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-642A1.txt
  • be filed with enough time to achieve the 28-day period before filing of the FCC Form 471, ``which must be postmarked no later than January 18... .'' We therefore find that AIC has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by art in context, New York, New York, on August 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Charles SanClementi, Jr., art in context, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-643A1.txt
  • be considered with other in-window applicants. How the applicant delegates responsibility for the applications is not relevant to our analysis. We conclude that Wilcox has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Dermott Special School District, Dermott, Arkansas, on August 17, 2001; Hoven School District No. 53-2, Hoven, South Dakota, on August 24, 2001; Mastics-Moriches-Shirley Community Library, Shirley, New York, on August 16, 2001; Mounds Public Schools, Mounds, Oklahoma, on August 20, 2001; Reading-Muhlenberg
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-644A1.txt
  • must be filed with enough time to achieve the 28-day period before filing of the FCC Form 471, ``which must be postmarked no later than January 18... .'' We conclude that Loutit has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Loutit District Library, Grand Haven, Michigan on August 29, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gail Skruch, Loutit District Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 29, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-671A1.txt
  • Hanna has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Hanna's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Hanna's initial request, Hanna may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hanna Public Schools, Hanna, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Moody, Hanna Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-672A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Municipal Telephone Exchange's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Municipal Telephone Exchange's initial request, Municipal Telephone Exchange may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Municipal Telephone Exchange, Baltimore, Maryland, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Gray, Municipal Telephone Exchange, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2002 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-673A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Twin Valley's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Twin Valley's initial request, Twin Valley may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Twin Valley School District, Reading, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert B. Lipton, Berks County Intermediate Unit, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-674A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Somis Union's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Somis Union's initial request, Somis Union may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Somis Union School District, Somis, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard J. Malfatti, Somis Union School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 30, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-68A1.txt
  • the general rule. A rule, therefore, may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In the instant case, we conclude that Schuyler fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 7, 2000 by Schuyler R-1 School District, Queen City, Missouri and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-697A1.txt
  • Review, seeking full funding of FRN 371468, must be denied. Further, because SLD has already improperly awarded discounts on this contract for both Funding Year 2 and Funding Year 3, we direct SLD to adjust these funding commitments in accordance with its established funding commitment adjustment procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady of Refuge School, Bronx, New York, on February 14, 2001, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-699A1.txt
  • that a new form was being used in Funding Year 4 and SLD's failure to notify Floyd County of the new form are not circumstances that warrant a deviation from program requirements. We therefore find that Floyd County has failed to demonstrate grounds for a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Floyd County Board of Education, Rome, Georgia, on April 3, 2001 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Floyd County Board of Education, Rome, Georgia, on July 24, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-69A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Cotton Center fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Cotton Center ISD, Cotton Center, Texas, on June 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Keith E. Gast, Cotton Center ISD, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-700A1.txt
  • filing window. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has issued Administrator's Decisions on Appeal, informing Wathena that its appeal has brought forward persuasive information and that its request will be reviewed and considered for funding. Wathena's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wathena Unified School District, Wathena, Kansas, on August 21, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leslie Pullman, Wathena Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-701A1.txt
  • the amount awarded for FRN 552512. In addition, we also note that Zeeland made its request over four months after the RAL was issued, well beyond the two-week RAL correction deadline. Accordingly, we find that SLD appropriately denied Zeeland's request to make certain revisions to its application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Zeeland Public School District No. 4, Zeeland, North Dakota on October 9, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Corbley Ogren, Zeeland Public School District No. 4, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-70A1.txt
  • three days before the filing window closed on March 31, 2000. Because Frazier demonstrates that it mailed its forms at least three days before the filing window closed, in accordance with Hardee County, we direct SLD to consider its application as filed within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Frazier School District, Perryopolis, Pennsylvania on August 17, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Frazier's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-71A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Pottsville fails to present sufficient good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Pottsville Area School District, Pottsville, Pennsylvania on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Diane Hutchinson, Pottsville Area School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-72A1.txt
  • place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. Here, Scottsdale Horizons fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Scottsdale Horizons School, Scottsdale, Arizona, on July 12, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Harry Stelling, Jr., Scottsdale Horizons School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 12, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-73A1.txt
  • all relevant rules and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of correct application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Given SDAS's failure to substantiate its claim, we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Seventh Day Adventist School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on November 17, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brandy Sand, on behalf of Seventh Day Adventist School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-741A1.txt
  • the required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that ACCEPT has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 31, 2001 by ACCEPT Education Collaborative IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Pallidino, ACCEPT Education Collaborative to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-742A1.txt
  • correctly characterized as internal connections. Further, our review of the attachments reveal nothing that indicated any error in the discount calculations of the entities listed in Block 4 or anything that would have apprised SLD that any of the FRNs were wrongly classified as shared service requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gary Community School Corporation, Gary, Indiana, on May 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Yamilette Williams, Gary Community School Corporation, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-743A1.txt
  • required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that Saint Martin has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 30, 2001 by Saint Martin of Tours School, Bronx, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sister Nora McArt, Saint Martin of Tours School, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-745A1.txt
  • the required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that Adirondack has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed November 5, 2001 by Southern Adirondack Library System, Saratoga Springs, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Southern
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-74A1.txt
  • Form 471 when it receives it. The bar code on Waikiki's application indicates that SLD received it on February 17, 2000. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude that SLD did receive it on that date. We therefore deny Waikiki's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Waikiki Elementary School, Honolulu, Hawaii, on July 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Les Goto, Waikiki Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 6, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-750A1.txt
  • Appeal was issued, SLD could not possibly have considered it. Moreover, because we do not, in general, consider material not in the record before SLD, we find that it is not properly part of the record before us for review. We therefore do not address its significance. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, California, on November 21, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from David L. Wilner, Oakland Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-75A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-75A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-75A1.txt
  • no evidence of when it mailed its application. In keeping with this Order, St. Athanasius may provide evidence to substantiate its claim that it mailed its application on January 14, 2000. Upon timely submission, the Commission will determine whether the evidence supports a grant of waiver. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the following applicants SHALL SUBMIT, within 60 days of the date of the release of this Order, any such evidence as required by the terms of this Order concerning the date of the filing of their applications: Alpine County Unified School District, Markleeville, California, filed June 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-76A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-76A1.txt
  • filing window closed, and it was received by SLD on January 24, 2000. Stanley offers no other extenuating circumstances in support of its Waiver Request. We conclude that Stanley fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore deny its Waiver Request. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the following Waiver Requests ARE DENIED: Anna Stowell Sunderland Bingham Memorial School, Cornwall, Vermont, filed June 6, 2000; Capitol Region Education Council, Hartford, Connecticut, filed June 26, 2000; Dickinson Public Schools, Dickinson, North Dakota, filed June 26, 2000; Ekalaka Public Schools, Ekalaka, Montana, filed July 6, 2000;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-77A1.txt
  • the appeal unless SLD had requested the clarifying information during review and failed to receive it. These conditions are satisfied and, therefore, we vacate the denial of funding and remand to SLD for further consideration, consistent with this decision, of whether funding of FRN 227825 is appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chickasaw Regional Library System, Ardmore, Oklahoma, on July 18, 2000 is GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn A. McIntosh, Chickasaw
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-78A1.txt
  • on the discount rate, what entity or entities would be receiving the requested services. We find that the information was not easily discernable from information in the application, and that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, we affirm SLD's rejection of the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Crawford County Public Library, English, Indiana, on August 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Janet LaBreche, Crawford County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 9, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-79A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-79A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-79A1.txt
  • by Enoch Pratt appear to establish that each of the two applications relate to different Bell Atlantic accounts. In light of this possible incorrect cancellation, we remand Application Control No. E004736 (File No. SLD-109061) to SLD to determine whether discounts should have been granted for that application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore, Maryland, on March 15, 2000 IS DENIED IN PART, and REMANDED IN PART, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Wallace, Enoch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-80A1.txt
  • was appropriately returned for failure to satisfy minimum processing standards. We find that the information requested in Item 11 of Block 5, the category of service, was not a new information request in Funding Year 3 and that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Escondido Union High School District, Escondido, California, on July 10, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terri Stafford, Escondido Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-81A1.txt
  • processing standards. We find that the information requested in Item 11 of Block 5, the category of service, was not a new information request in Funding Year 3 and that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, we affirm SLD's rejection of the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hanover County Public Schools, Ashland, Virginia, on February 21, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marilyn M. Walls, Hanover County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission. filed February 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-828A1.txt
  • for shared services ordered by billed entity.'' As noted, Chichester requested a site-specific service, not a shared service, and further specified the site as CSHS. We therefore find that SLD correctly funded FRN 190250 at the 40% rate of CSHS rather than the district's overall 49% rate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chichester School District, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania, on June 4, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joyce Voshell, Chichester School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 4, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-829A1.txt
  • that more than 30% of FRNs 393119 and 393807 sought discounts for services provided to Area Vocational Center. Under SLD procedures, if 30% or more of a request is ineligible, the request is denied in its entirety. SLD therefore correctly denied these two FRNs in their entirety. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Crenshaw County Public Schools, Luverne, Alabama, on April 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Reba Mason, Crenshaw County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-82A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Governor's School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Governor's School for Global Economics and Technology, Keysville, Virginia, on July 17, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy R. Carwile, Governor's School for Global Economics and Technology,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-830A1.txt
  • applications may not be considered for funding. The burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided properly rests with the applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Davis has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 20, 2001, by Davis School District, Farmington, Utah, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard Lemon, Davis School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 20, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-831A1.txt
  • in section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 2, 2001, by Elgin Public Library, Elgin, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Beverly Strong, Elgin Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 2, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-832A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Lancaster Area fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lancaster Area Library, Lancaster, Pennsylvania on October 19, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-833A1.txt
  • 2001 filing window had closed. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has determined that Lewis County's Form 471 application for discounted services was timely filed and has issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter. Lewis County's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lewis County School District, Weston, West Virginia, on August 28, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Lewis County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-834A1.txt
  • its FCC Form 471, Block 6 certifications, and/or Item 21 attachments by the deadline for the Funding Year 4 filing window. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Putnam is seeking. Putnam's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Putnam County School District, Putnam, West Virginia, on September 4, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, on behalf of Putnam County School District, Winfield,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-835A1.txt
  • the listed FCC Form 470 Application number contained less than 14 digits. Thus, in accordance with the Bureau's decision in the Pediatric Library Order, we remand Volusia's application to SLD for further processing consistent with the way the SLD processed applications with 14 or more digits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the School District of Volusia County, on April 16, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from the School District of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-836A1.txt
  • which discounts are requested in FCC Form 471.'' Because Thomas did not list its request as one for Internet access on its FCC Form 470 and 471 consistently, we conclude that Thomas failed to satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. Accordingly, we deny Thomas' Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 29, 2001, by Thomas Communications & Technologies, Syracuse, New York, on behalf of John A. Coleman Catholic High School, Hurley, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-837A1.txt
  • 471 application, Block 6 Certifications, and/or Item 21 attachments were postmarked after the 2001-2002 filing window closed on January 18, 2001. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Webermeier is seeking. Webermeier's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Webermeier Memorial Library, Milford, Nebraska, on September 4, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Edna A. Riedl, Webermeier Memorial Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-838A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Berks County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Berks County's initial request, Berks County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Berks County Intermediate Unit, Reading, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert B. Lipton, Berks County Intermediate Unit, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 27, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-839A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bnois Spinka's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bnois Spinka's initial request, Bnois Spinka may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnois Spinka, Brooklyn, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gitty Horowitz, Bnois Spinka, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 24, 2002 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-83A1.txt
  • subsequent years of a pre-existing multi-year contract. We conclude that, because Henrico relied on an FCC Form 470 seeking services in Funding Year 3 to support an application for services in Funding Year 2, SLD correctly rejected the application. Henrico's Request for Review must therefore be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond, Virginia, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Charles Stallard, Henrico County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-840A1.txt
  • 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Floyd County failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 26, 2002, by Floyd County Board of Education, Rome, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Gatlin, Floyd County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-841A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Haywood fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Haywood County Schools, Clyde, North Carolina on February 20, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-842A1.txt
  • Rochester has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Rochester's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Rochester's initial request, Rochester may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rochester Public Library, Rochester, Pennsylvania, on January 4, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jody Bell, Rochester Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-843A1.txt
  • of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be remanded to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Michael School, Brooklyn, New York on January 2, 2002, IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-844A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Wisconsin Dells's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Wisconsin Dells's initial request, Wisconsin Dells may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School District of Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ann Gissal, School District of Wisconsin Dells, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-845A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss St. Jude School's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Jude School's initial request, St. Jude School may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Jude School, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Deegan, St. Jude School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-846A1.txt
  • denied the application again for lack of a response. Therefore, we dismiss Rushford-Peterson's Request for Review as moot. Nothing in this Order prevents Rushford-Peterson from appealing the Rejection Letter to SLD within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the Rejection Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rushford-Peterson Secondary School, Rushford, Minnesota, on September 11, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Valerie Hasleiet, Rushford-Peterson Secondary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-84A1.txt
  • the application that the services in each funding request were site-specific with the same BEN. Additionally, as was the case in Naperville, the record reflects that Koko Head's application is otherwise substantially complete. Therefore, we remand the application to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Koko Head Elementary School, Honolulu, Hawaii, on July 3, 2000 IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Les Goto,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-85A1.txt
  • Hills does not dispute that Mon-Wal is not an eligible telecommunications carrier. Thus, we find that FRN 348764 was correctly denied based on its ineligible SPIN. Because the SPIN led to a funding denial, we conclude that Penn Hill was not thereafter entitled to a SPIN correction. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Penn Hills School District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on February 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louis Treleani, Penn Hills School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-86A1.txt
  • to filing the FCC Form 471 is itself a violation of the competitive bidding rules. However, we find that the new information cannot be accepted. The FCC Form 471s specified contract award dates for the services requested, and Richmond may not submit contrary information on appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Richmond County Public Schools, Warsaw, Virginia, on May 9, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karl G. O'Dell, Richmond County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-87A1.txt
  • Under program rules, not every application error is treated under the minimum processing standards procedures. Rather, only those problems specified by SLD in the Minimum Processing Standards will cause SLD to return the application without further review. We conclude that this allegation provides no basis for relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ringwood Board of Education, Ringwood, New Jersey, on August 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Diane DeBlock, Ringwood Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-88A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Tuxedo fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Tuxedo Park School, Tuxedo Park, New York, on January 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James T. Burger, Tuxedo Park School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-890A1.txt
  • Act. We leave all other issues for SLD to address as needed on further review. In so doing, we encourage SLD to proceed with caution in this novel context to ensure that universal service funds are distributed in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements and restrictions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Arkansas Department of Correction School District, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on March 1, 2001 IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-891A1.txt
  • official record supporting Kings Local's assertion that it did not receive the Funding Commitment Decision Letters. Moreover, Kings Local fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeals to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on February 21, 2002, by Kings Local School District, Kings Mills, Ohio ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-892A1.txt
  • Therefore, based on the information in the record that was before SLD during application review, we find that the services requested in the 47 Funding Requests at issue in this appeal were not subjected to competitive bidding in compliance with Commission rules, and were therefore correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Montgomery County School District, Montgomery, Alabama on July 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Carol A. Doucet, Montgomery Public Schools, to Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-89A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-89A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-89A1.txt
  • have ended on January 18, 2000, and Alton would have been able to sign contracts and file its FCC Form 471 before the close of the filing window on January 19, 2000. We therefore find that Alton should be granted a waiver of the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Alton Elementary School - Maine School Union No. 90 (Alton), Milford, Maine, on October 4, 2000 IS GRANTED, and this application is remanded to SLD for further processing consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-90A1.txt
  • in accordance with this decision. If, under the substantive standard that SLD develops for permissible site corrections, the pending requests are denied on the merits, Forth Worth ISD may seek further review from the Commission at that time, subject to the deadlines for appeal of SLD action. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Forth Worth Independent School District, Forth Worth, Texas on September 14, 2000 IS GRANTED, and the site correction requests are REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-91A1.txt
  • to ``Funding Commitment Decision,'' SLD provided: ``Insufficient documentation.'' Next to ``Funding Commitment Decision Explanation,'' SLD stated, as noted above, ``Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to determine the eligibility of this item.'' Because Goodrich provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information, we affirm SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goodrich Independent School District, Goodrich, Texas, on May 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Keith McCallum, Goodrich Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-92A1.txt
  • Request for Review was filed more than 30 days after the issuance of both the July 14, 2000 First Rejection Letter and the July 21, 2000 Second Rejection Letter. Thus, it is not a timely challenge to either decision, and must be dismissed on those grounds. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Morrisville-Eaton Central School System, Morrisville, New York, on October 11, 2000 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gregory M. Beall, Morrisville-Eaton Central School System, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-93A1.txt
  • amend their FCC Form 471s to remove ineligible services, including Priority Two services to which an entity is not entitled, after the closure of the FCC Form 471 filing window deadline. Because none of La Crosse's arguments provide grounds for relief, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2001, by the School District of La Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tom Ward, School District of La Crosse, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-940A1.txt
  • of the record, we find that Deer Park did not satisfy minimum processing standards in Funding Year 4, because the Street Address, P.O. Box or Route Number in Block 1, Item 4a was left blank. Therefore, we must affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Deer Park Community Consolidated Elementary School District No. 82, Ottawa, Illinois, on June 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Conrad Spirrison, Deer Park Community Consolidated Elementary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-941A1.txt
  • the 30-day filing period for Funding Year 2. By e-mail dated March 27, 2002, Doolittle confirmed that it had applied for and received the same funding in a separate application and requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn because such application duplicated the present application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Doolittle West School, Chicago, Illinois, on November 16, 2000 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Eugene Dumas, Chicago Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 16, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-942A1.txt
  • the submitted application, a copy of which is in the record before us, Worksheet C is not present. We therefore find that Intelenet did not submit Worksheet C along with its application and that SLD correctly rejected Intelenet's application for failure to satisfy minimum processing standards. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, on July 17, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bob G. Carnal, Intelenet Commission, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-943A1.txt
  • applications that fail minimum processing standards has already been affirmed by the Commission. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the ultimate responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Chicago Community Unit School District 187, North Chicago, Illinois, on July 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tyrone Pipkin, North Chicago Community Unit School District 187,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-944A1.txt
  • standards is submitted. As SLD noted, both the corrections to OLL's original application form and the new application using the correct form were submitted after the close of the filing window. Thus, SLD correctly found that OLL's application had not been submitted within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed by Our Lady of Loretto, Redford, Mississippi, on July 11, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynne Wendt, Our Lady of Loretto, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-945A1.txt
  • process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Springfield's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, New Jersey, on May 23, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniela Tattoli, Spingfield Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 23,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-94A1.txt
  • jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately predict the total amount of priority one services requested in a year as required to apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Valliant's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Valliant Independent School District 11, Ada, Oklahoma, on April 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Debi Sovereign, Kellogg Consulting, L.L.C., on behalf of Valliant Independent School District 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-956A1.txt
  • be considered within the window. An applicant must further take responsibility for the actions of those employees or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Information Technology Department, State of North Dakota, Bismarck, North Dakota, on October 17, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Curtis Wolfe, Information Technology Department, State of North
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-95A1.txt
  • cost of the eligible and ineligible components. Thus, where SLD has requested but not received a specific breakdown of ineligible and eligible costs in a funding request, SLD is warranted and, indeed, obligated to construe the entire request as ineligible so as to avoid funding ineligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chelmsford Public Schools, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, on June 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bernard DiNatale, Chelmsford Public School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, File No. SLD-121771,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-101A1.txt
  • the applicant gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Mirrer Yeshiva fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mirrer Yeshiva Educational Institute, Brooklyn, New York on February 20, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1025A1.txt
  • the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. La Salle's reasons of misunderstanding and need for the funding are not a special circumstance warranting a waiver. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by La Salle Institute, Troy, New York on March 15, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William P. Maloney III, La Salle Institute, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1026A1.txt
  • necessitate conflict resolution, or excessively delayed before notifying an applicant of problems with an FCC Form 470, such circumstances are not present here. Thus, the circumstances described by Lauderdale are not special circumstances warranting a waiver. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny Lauderdale's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lauderdale County Board of Education, Florence, Alabama, on August 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Fulmer, Lauderdale County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1027A1.txt
  • Misunderstanding of the rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Neither is the threat that denial of funding may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library. Therefore, we affirm the Administrator and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Ridgemont Public Library, Mt. Victory, Ohio, on January 29, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy J. Terrill, Ridgemont Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-102A1.txt
  • (as one of its staff personnel eventually did) or contacting SLD directly. Either method would have apprised it of the funding decision in time to meet all applicable deadlines. Thus, we find that Port Angeles has not demonstrated circumstances warranting a deviation from the general rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Port Angeles School District 121, Port Angeles, Washington, on July 2, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Facsimile from Jim Bennett, Olympic Peninsula Consultants, on behalf of Port Angeles
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-103A1.txt
  • held that, absent special circumstances, applicants who request waiver of the FCC Form 471 deadline will be denied. Here, Gunter fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its applications. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Gunter Independent School District, Gunter, Texas, on March 1 and 28, 2002 ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503; Letters from Dwana Uselton, Gunter Independent School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-104A1.txt
  • correct the allowable contract date, contract award date, and contract numbers in its FRNs. Because the new FCC Form 470 was inconsistent with that information in its FRNs, and because the old FCC Form 470 did not support the FRNs, we conclude that SLD properly denied funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services, Jackson, Mississippi on February 27, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Willie Blackmon, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-105A1.txt
  • failure to mention the problem warrants relief from the failure to submit a complete application. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on applicants the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Locust Valley Library, Locust Valley, New York, on January 11, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Salvatore Marino, Locust Valley Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-106A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Paso Robles failed to file an appeal of the July 26, 2001 FCC Form 471 Certification Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Paso Robles's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Paso Robles Public Schools, Paso Robles, California, on February 20, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Laurie Crowe, Paso Robles Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-107A1.txt
  • Because Our Lady of Lourdes failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Our Lady of Lourdes's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady of Lourdes School, Melbourne, Florida, on January 15, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeanette B. Colburn, Our Lady of Lourdes School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-108A1.txt
  • Commission only upon receipt. Because the 30-day period has been extended by an additional 30 days for requests for review, Ubly's October 15, 2001 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Ubly's Request for Review and direct SLD to review Ubly's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ubly Community Schools, Ubly, Michigan on March 4, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Evelyn Smaglinski, Ubly Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-109A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because West Branch failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss West Branch's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by West Branch Community Schools, West Branch, Iowa, on March 4, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig Artist, West Branch Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-110A1.txt
  • in a letter to SLD that the signature was missing on the Form 471. Thus, consistent with our precedent in the South Barber Order, we conclude that SLD's decision is supported by precedent and the underlying record. We therefore affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Berks County Intermediate Unit, Alsace School on March 25, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert Lipton, Berks County Intermediate Unit, Alsace School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-111A1.txt
  • has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its appeals. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Gloversville has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gloversville Enlarged School District, Gloversville, New York, on February 15, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-112A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, S.C. Governor's School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by S.C. Governor's School for Science and Mathematics, Hartsville, South Carolina, on January 8, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1138A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District, Downieville, California on February 12, 2003, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1139A1.txt
  • its FCC Form 471, ten months after it learned that Comcast had agreed to continue the contract and the filing window had closed. In light of these considerations, we find that Hatboro-Horsham's argument does not justify a waiver of our rules and deny Hatboro-Horsham's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Hatboro-Horsham School District, Horsham, Pennsylvania on February 20, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Casagrand, Hatboro-Horsham School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-113A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 31, 2001, by Northland Community Schools, Remer, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Doro, Northland Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 31, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-114A1.txt
  • fails to establish conclusively that Albany signed its application on that same date. As a result, we find that Albany has failed to provide the Commission with persuasive evidence that demonstrates that it complied with the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We, therefore, deny Albany's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Albany Public Library, Albany, New York, on January 31, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Patricia M. Hollman, Albany Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-115A1.txt
  • is unfortunate that WestCEL's error in following the competitive bidding rules resulted in denial of its Funding Year 2001 request, as stated above, it is administratively necessary for the applicant to bear the burden of understanding program rules and procedures. We, therefore, deny WestCEL's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by WestCEL, Rangley, Colorado, on March 4, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Chris Brubaker, WestCEL, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed March 4, 2002 (Request for Review). See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-116A1.txt
  • funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. In particular, failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements must result in a denial of support by SLD. We, therefore, deny Albuquerque's Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System, Albuquerque, New Mexico, on December 20, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John Godfrey, Albuquerque/Bernalillo Library System, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-117A1.txt
  • ultimately responsible for the timely submission of its appeals. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that St. Norbert has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Norbert School, Northbrook, Illinois on March 21, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-118A1.txt
  • its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John's Preparatory School, Astoria, New York on March 21, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-119A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Chelsea School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chelsea School, Chelsea, Maine on March 11, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-120A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Apostles School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Queen of Apostles School, Alexandria, Virginia on March 5, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-121A1.txt
  • November 16, 2001, was timely. Therefore, we reverse the Administrator's Decision on Appeal, and remand to SLD for it to address Calhoun's SLD Appeal on the merits. In doing so, we emphasize that we make no determination as to whether Calhoun is ultimately entitled to any relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Calhoun School, New York, New York on December 7, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to SLD for consideration of the Calhoun School's appeal on the merits. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-122A1.txt
  • School's ability to appeal was prejudiced by SLD's unreasonable delay in responding to Apostles School's request for a copy of the missing page from the Funding Commitment Decision Letter. Therefore, we grant Queen of Apostles' Request for Review and remand its application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Queen of Apostles School, Alexandria, Virginia on March 5, 2002, IS GRANTED and its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig Wojay, Queen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-123A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Washington County fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington County Educational Service Center, Marietta, Ohio on March 4, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-124A1.txt
  • responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its appeals. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Granger School has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Granger School District No. 204, Granger School, Washington, on February 27, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-128A1.txt
  • PowerVault servers comprise more than 30% of the funding request. Specifically, the PowerVault servers cost $375,118, or 69% of the total request of $539,888. Because more than 30% of FRN 429028 was properly found to be ineligible, we affirm SLD's decision denying funding for the entire request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Western Heights School District I-41, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on May 10, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Western Heights School District I-41,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1456A1.txt
  • items were determined to be eligible under the Internet access category of service in the Commission's Universal Service Order. We agree. Because we find that granting the Request is warranted based on these grounds, we need not address the other arguments raised in the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on behalf of Barberton City School District, Barberton, Ohio on August 1, 2002 IS GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1569A1.txt
  • has modified the instructions for Funding Year 2003, and the instructions now state ``if the application type is consortium, a completed Block 4 Worksheet C must be submitted.'' We therefore reverse SLD's decision and remand Petitioner's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Western New York Regional Information Center, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and the applications of Erie 1 Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Erie 2 - Chautauqua/Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Cattaraugus/Allegany Board of Cooperative Education Service, Orleans/Niagara Board
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1570A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School District of Durand, Durand, Wisconsin on January 22, 2003, IS DISMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1573A1.txt
  • Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator). On October 2, 2002, Christian County appealed the decision to the Federal Communications Commission. Since the Request for Review was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial. Therefore, we dismiss Christian County's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Christian County Public School District, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, on October 2, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bruce Lindsey, Christian County Public School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1574A1.txt
  • on or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Clifton filed its appeal on March 25, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 25, 2003, by Clifton High School, Clifton, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sheila Musselman, Clifton High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 25, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1575A1.txt
  • on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gardner Unified School District 231, Gardner, Kansas on December 12, 2002, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1576A1.txt
  • special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 26, 2003, by Genoa-Kingston School District 424, Kingston, Illinois, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1577A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lucia Mar Unified School District, Arroyo Grande, California on April 16, 2003 IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1578A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Riverside County filed its appeal on March 3, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 3, 2003, by Riverside County Office of Education, Riverside, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Spires, Riverside County Office of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1579A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Woodbridge Township's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Woodbridge Township may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 17, 2003, by Woodbridge Township School District, Woodbridge, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Esolda, Woodbridge Township School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1580A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Yeshiva Rav filed its appeal on March 26, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 26, 2003, by Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nechama Green, Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2003
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-181A1.txt
  • a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Boardman's reason is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boardman Local Schools, Youngstown, Ohio, on July 31, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert J. Wright, Boardman Local Schools, Youngstown, Ohio, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-182A1.txt
  • alone'' automated catalogue or an internal system. We find that SLD erred in denying Rochester's request. Frame Relay 56K connections are eligible for discounts as telecommunications services, irrespective of the fact that they may link to a Library Automated Catalogue, which is not itself eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rochester Public Library, Rochester, Pennsylvania on April 22, 2002 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application for discounts filed by Rochester Public Library IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for further review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1885A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Grainfield's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Grainfield may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 18, 2003, by Grainfield City Library, Grainfield, Kansas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Anna Whiteman, Grainfield City Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1921A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Northside Center's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Northside Center may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 31, 2003, by Northside Center for Child Development, Inc., New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paula Magnus, Northside Center for Child Development,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1922A1.txt
  • (Administrator) to deny funding because of competitive bidding issues related to Orleans Parish's FCC Form 470 and Requests for Proposal. On May 22, 2003, Orleans Parish requested that its Requests for Review be withdrawn because it has appealed to SLD and is waiting for SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Orleans Parish School District, New Orleans, Louisiana, on March 21, 2003 ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letters from George Watts, Orleans Parish School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1923A1.txt
  • of the late-filed application, it was the Springfield's responsibility to file a timely and complete application before the close of the filing window. As a result, we do not agree that this is sufficient justification for waiver. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Springfield School District on December 4, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joseph Silver, Springfield School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 4, 2002 (Waiver Request). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1945A1.txt
  • Federal Register, providing legal notice to all parties. Therefore, SLD was not required to re-announce this policy in each affected Funding Year 1998 funding decision. In sum, we conclude that SLD correctly found the SLD Appeal to be untimely, and uphold SLD's dismissal of the GCI's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by General Communication, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, on March 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey APPENDIX A Applicant Name: File No: Funding Request Nos.: Alaska Gateway School District 102570 117391, 117411, 117460 Aleutian East Borough School District 70690 73774 Bering
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1946A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Ahead Communications' Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Ahead Communications may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 14, 2003, by Ahead Communications Systems, Middlebury, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Theresa DeNuzzo, Ahead Communications Systems, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1947A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Federal Way's Requests for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Federal Way may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on May 13, 2003, by Federal Way Public Schools, Federal Way, Washington, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandy Nelson, Federal Way Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2195A1.txt
  • we dismiss as moot Wray's Waiver Request for FRNs 746217, 746370, 746485, 746562, 746582, 746700, and 748073. On June 26, 2003, Wray filed a Request to Withdraw its Waiver Request for FRN 746497. We grant Wray's Request to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss the Request for Waiver. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Wray School District RD2, Wray, Colorado on September 13, 2002, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robyn Custer, Wray School District RD-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2286A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Anderson County filed its appeal on June 10, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 10, 2003, by Anderson County School District, Clinton, Tennessee, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Georgia Morrow, E-Rate Consulting, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 10, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2288A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Blount County filed its appeal on May 29, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 29, 2003, by Blount County Schools, Maryville, Tennessee, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alvin Hord, Blount County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 29, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2289A1.txt
  • August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Colorado Springs SD 11 filed its appeal on June 25, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 25, 2003, by Colorado Springs School District 11, Colorado Springs, Colorado, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Raymond Caplinger, Colorado Springs School District 11, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2290A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Linden's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Linden may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 29, 2003, by Linden Public Schools, Linden, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Frank Taranto, Linden Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2291A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, New Haven filed its appeal on February 20, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2003, by New Haven Public Schools, New Haven, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Reginald Mayo, New Haven Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2292A1.txt
  • Therefore, we grant the request for review and remand Kohl's application to SLD for consideration. However, by remanding we do not suggest an outcome for Kohl's application. Furthermore, because we have granted Kohl's request for review, we find it unnecessary to consider its waiver request. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rachel Kohl Community Library, Glenn Mills, Pennsylvania, on October 30, 2002 IS GRANTED AND REMANDED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kathleen Pileggi, Rachel Kohl Community Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2433A1.txt
  • to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Bliss School District' Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Bliss School District may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 5, 2003, by Bliss School District 234, Bliss, Idaho, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kevin Lancaster, Bliss School District 234, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2434A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Iditarod Area's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Iditarod Area may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 12, 2003, by Iditarod Area School District, McGrath, Alaska, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Isabelle Harrington, Iditarod Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2435A1.txt
  • after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, USD No. 507 filed its appeal on June 10, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 10, 2003, by Unified School District No. 507, Satanta, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Monty Brown, Unified School District No. 507, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-243A1.txt
  • program's rules and procedures. The circumstances described by Glover do not constitute special circumstances for purposes of our waiver standard. Therefore, we conclude that Glover has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Glover Elementary School, Broken Bow, Oklahoma, on January 18, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jon Tuck, Glover Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 18, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-244A1.txt
  • merit a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, Union Township's claims that its applications were late due to incorrect advice from SLD is insufficient to justify a waiver. We conclude that Union Township has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Union Township School, Hampton, New Jersey, on January 16, 2002, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michelle Burton, Union Township School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 16, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-245A1.txt
  • is cutting expenses in the budget unconnected to its discounted service obligations to cover the shortfall. Similarly, Yeshiva should be permitted to demonstrate that it can cover the entire $18,175.36 amount of its share of the costs, including the $175.36 amount not covered in its original budget. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Beginning with Children Charter School, Brooklyn, New York, on May 14, 2002 IS GRANTED, and its application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Karlin-Stolin, Brooklyn, New York, on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2562A1.txt
  • County requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 331196. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Andrews County's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 331196. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Andrews County's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed September 9, 2002, by Andrews County Library, Andrews, Texas, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Elizabeth Stottlemyre, Andrews County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 9, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2563A1.txt
  • the general rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on applicants. We conclude that Baldwin Park fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baldwin Park Unified School District, Baldwin Park, California, on July 12, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2564A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, DeLeon requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 338009. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved DeLeon's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 338009. Accordingly, the Division dismisses DeLeon's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed August 26, 2002, by DeLeon Independent School District, DeLeon, Texas, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Otwell, DeLeon Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2565A1.txt
  • County requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 332461. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Grant County's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 332461. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Grant County's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed October 16, 2002, by Grant County Board of Education, Williamstown, Kentucky, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Becky Epperson, Grant County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2566A1.txt
  • deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 2, 2003, by Holly School District, Holly, Colorado, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2567A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Tunbridge requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 337012. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Tunbridge's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 337012. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Tunbridge's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed October 31, 2002, by Tunbridge Public Library, Tunbridge, Vermont, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jean Wolfe, Tunbridge Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 31, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2568A1.txt
  • that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRNs) 345831 and 345658. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Wareham's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 345831 and 345658. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Wareham's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed September 11, 2002, by Wareham School District, Wareham, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeff Hathaway, Wareham School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2582A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 7, 2003, by School District of Somerset, Somerset, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED as it relates to the August 6, 2002 decision, IS DENIED as it relates to the February 13, 2003 decision, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2583A1.txt
  • not to file an appeal, Commission precedent establishes that where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2002, by Mifflin County Library, Lewistown, Pennsylvania, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2584A1.txt
  • Saint Michael School fails to provide evidence that it did not receive the July 24, 2002 notice. The mere assertion that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Michael School, Chicago, Illinois on March 25, 2003, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2585A1.txt
  • strict adherence to the rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. Staffing problems do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2002, by Bemus Point Central School District, Bemus Point, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan G. Gauch, Bemus Point Central School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2586A1.txt
  • Park seeks a waiver of the deadline for requests for review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company. Since Galena Park timely filed their appeal and offered evidence thereof, we dismiss as moot Galena Park's Request for Waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Galena Park Independent School District is DISMISSED AS MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeffrey Lorentz, Galena Park Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 27, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2587A1.txt
  • of program rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Further, we have consistently held in the past that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Saint Katherine Drexel School on July 3, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rev. Kevin P. Murray, Saint Katherine Drexel School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2588A1.txt
  • the general rule and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Here, Twin Hills fails to present good cause as to why it should receive a waiver of the filing requirements. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Twin Hills School, Okmulgee, Oklahoma, on August 19, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donna Martin, Twin Hills School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 19, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2917A1.txt
  • and unreasonable, as well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois on May 15, 2003, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2918A1.txt
  • and unreasonable, as well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Edcouch-Elsa Independent School District, Edcouch, Texas on November 1, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Funding Year 2001 deadline for installation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2919A1.txt
  • to the authority of the tribal governments qualify as local health departments. We find it appropriate to leave this determination for RHCD to make in the first instance, and therefore remand the pending applications to RHCD for such a determination, and for all appropriate further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 23, 2001 by Kawerak, Inc. on behalf of Health Care Providers No. 10687, 10690, 10692, 10694, 10695, 10697, 10698, 10699, 10701, 10702, 10703, and 10745, IS GRANTED, and these applications are REMANDED to RHCD for further review. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2964A1.txt
  • meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Brady ISD has not presented special circumstances that would justify a waiver in this instance. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 27, 2003, by Brady Independent School District, Brady, Texas, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2965A1.txt
  • to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss City of Boston's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, City of Boston may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 8, 2003, by W. T. Rich Company, Inc., Allston, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ralph Rich, W. T. Rich Company, Inc., to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2966A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Paramus filed its appeal on September 3, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 3, 2003, by Thomas Communications & Technology, on behalf of Paramus School District, Syracuse, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michelle Chemotti, Thomas Communications &
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2967A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Santa Maria's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Santa Maria may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 5, 2003, by Santa Maria Addolorata, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kermit Lattimore, Educational Computing Solutions, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2968A1.txt
  • deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 19, 2003, by CenturyTel, Inc., Monroe, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2969A1.txt
  • of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Edwin Gould filed its appeal on June 17, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 17, 2003, by Edwin Gould Academy, Chestnut Ridge, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Ann Dowling, Edwin Gould Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3047A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, NCOCC failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on NCOCC misunderstanding of the timing deadline does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 21, 2003, by North Central Ohio Computer Cooperative, Mansfield, Ohio, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3048A1.txt
  • this evidence in the first instance and determine what amount of funding, if any, is supported by new bills, we remand the application to SLD for consideration of FRN 509548. We affirm SLD's conclusion, however, that the ultimate burden of proving eligibility remains with the applicant. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request filed by DeLeon Independent School District, DeLeon, Texas, on March 13, 2002, is GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3049A1.txt
  • wait 28-days prior to signing and submitting its FCC Form 471 from the date its FCC Form 470 was posted. Unlike in the Cochrane-Fountain City School District Order, we therefore find that Harrisonburg failed to adhere to applicable requirements with respect to the Commission's competitive bidding policy. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Harrisonburg City School District, Harrisonburg City, Virginia, on January 16, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review from Denise Dawson, Harrisonburg City Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3050A1.txt
  • Commitment Decision Letter by periodically checking SLD's website or contacting SLD directly. Either method would have apprised it of the funding decision in time to meet all applicable deadlines. Therefore, we conclude that Smithton has failed to demonstrate circumstances that would warrant waiver of the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School District, Smithton, Missouri, on November 5, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bill Hadlow, Smithton School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 5, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3051A1.txt
  • submission of the application. Finally, Kansas's assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on schools within its borders does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Southwest Kansas Educational Consortium on July 11, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carol J. Swinney, Southwest Kansas Educational Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3052A1.txt
  • submission of the application. Finally, Warren's assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on schools within its borders does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Warren County School District on October 4, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Amy Stewart, Warren County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3053A1.txt
  • and Internet access, stating that the Commission may not waive a statutory deadline such as the October 28, 2001 deadline. Similarly, Gowanda seeks discounts for telecommunications services and Internet access. We conclude that our determination in the East Carroll Order applies to the instant Request for Waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Western New York Regional Information Center on behalf of Gowanda Central School District, West Seneca, New York on December 16, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3054A1.txt
  • by filing the corrected version shortly after being apprised of the mistake. Moreover, the deadline involved a first-time information request. Woodburn also sought discounts only for telecommunications services, and the Commission has authority to waive the deadline with respect to requests that involve only telecommunications services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Woodburn School District, Woodburn, Oregon on November 27, 2002 IS GRANTED and REMANDED TO SLD to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Paul A. Goodwin,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3104A1.txt
  • attaches a copy of its Priority Overnight Receipt from FedEx, dated January 17, 2002. Based on the underlying record, we conclude that Maine's application was postmarked by the filing window deadline. We therefore grant Maine's Request for Review and remand Maine's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Maine State Library, Augusta, Maine on January 17, 2003 IS GRANTED, and Maine's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-31A1.txt
  • even when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, Blessed Sacrament fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 16, 2002, by Blessed Sacrament Catholic School, Newark, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-32A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Clovis Municipal's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Clovis Municipal's initial request, Clovis Municipal may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 27, 2002, by Clovis Municipal Schools, Clovis, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Lamb, Clovis Municipal Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-33A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Father Yermo's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Father Yermo's initial request, Father Yermo may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 4, 2002, by Father Yermo High School, El Paso, Texas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Elia Hernandez, Father Yermo High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3463A1.txt
  • than strict adherence to the rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of filing properly on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dickey LaMoure Multidistrict Special Education, LaMoure, North Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Rhoda Young, Dickey LaMoure Multidistrict Special Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 8,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3464A1.txt
  • not have prevented SLD from data entering ESC's application. We note that, under current minimum processing standards for Block 1, applicants are required only to include (1) the name of the Billed Entity or the Entity Number; (2) the Funding Year; and (3) the Contact Person Name. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Education Service Center Region 12, Waco, Texas, on August 10, 2001 ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rob Scott, Education Service Center
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3465A1.txt
  • FCC Form 471 was received outside of the 28-day waiting period. As a result, we find that Grain Valley has failed to provide the Commission with persuasive evidence that demonstrates that it complied with the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We, therefore, deny Grain Valley's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by Grain Valley R-5 School District, Grain Valley, Missouri, on March 11, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan Welch, Grain Valley R-5 School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3466A1.txt
  • SLD's website provides urban/rural information for use by the applicant to determine its discount percentage. In addition, the Wireline Competition Bureau has previously held that the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided rests with applicants. Therefore, we deny Highland Valley's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Highland School District No. 305, Craigmont, Idaho, on August 1, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ivy Breen, Highland School District No. 305, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3467A1.txt
  • day that the president was available for a two week time period. Hughesville also states that it had only 21 days to review and decide on its contract. We find that SLD's decision is consistent with our precedent and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hughesville Public Library, Hughesville, Pennsylvania on August 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lena K. Carichner, Hughesville Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 9, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3468A1.txt
  • circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Magen David fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a waiver our rules. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Magen David Yeshiva, Brooklyn, New York on October 24, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sheila Rubin, Magen David Yeshiva, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3469A1.txt
  • with our review of the record. Under our review of the record, and in light of the Hardee County Order, we find that Northwest complied with the deadline. We emphasize that, in remanding the applications for SLD's review, we make no conclusions as to their merits. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 19, 2002 by Northwest Tri-County Intermediate, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED, and we REMAND to the Administrator for further processing consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Vince Humes, Northwest
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3470A1.txt
  • the FCC Form 470 at issue in the instant Request for Review was intended for requests in Funding Year 2000, rather than for the previous funding year. Therefore, consistent with the Commission's precedent established in the Henrico Order, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Oklahoma City School District I-89, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on October 12, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Oklahoma
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3471A1.txt
  • competitive bidding rules. Pittsylvania may extend their existing contracts for non-recurring services for FRN 260055 voluntarily until September 30, 2004, without having to comply with the Commission's competitive bidding process. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by Pittsylvania County Schools, Chatham, Virginia on December 20, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3472A1.txt
  • rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Prospect Sierra has not presented any arguments or unique circumstances that would warrant granting a waiver of this rule. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Prospect Sierra School, El Cerrito, California, on July 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dena Watson-Lamprey, Prospect Sierra School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3473A1.txt
  • a good faith effort, they do not demonstrate sufficient grounds to justify waiver of the Commission's rules. The Bureau has consistently declined to waive the Commission's rules based on an applicant's misunderstanding of the rules. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Roselle Catholic High School, Roselle, New Jersey, on August 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan MacDonell, Roselle Catholic High School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3474A1.txt
  • meter. We find that in this particular situation, however, given there is precedent for considering evidence from licensed postage meters, it is appropriate that St. John's application be considered as timely filed. Thus, we grant St. John's Request for Review and we remand their application to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review from St. John Vianney High School, Holmdel, New Jersey, filed on August 28, 2001, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3475A1.txt
  • waste, serves as an additional means of holding applicants accountable for their representations, and assists in the efficient administration of the program. By failing to submit a signature certification, Syracuse-Dunbar omitted the legally binding act that signifies compliance with program rules. We therefore deny Syracuse-Dunbar's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Syracuse-Dunbar-Avoca School District on March 26, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rod Powell, Syracuse-Dunbar-Avoca School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2002 (Waiver Request). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3476A1.txt
  • where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Utica City School District, Utica, New York on August 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William J. Thomas, Utica City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3477A1.txt
  • John's FCC Form 471 therefore was untimely because the Item 21 attachment was not submitted within the filing window. Finding no merit to St. John's legal arguments, we affirm the decision of SLD to treat St. John's application as filed outside the Funding Year 2001 filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John Central School, Marietta, Ohio, on August 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by St. John Central School, CC Docket Nos.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-34A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss HLV Community's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on HLV Community's initial request, HLV Community may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 25, 2002, by HLV Community School District, Victor, Iowa, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lori McClenathan, HLV Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3522A1.txt
  • and that applicants should ensure that if they could not obtain a postmark on that date, they should postmark their application on Saturday, October 27, 2001 at the latest. Because Barre has failed to demonstrate circumstances that would warrant waiver of the deadline, we affirm SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Barre Supervisory Union District No. 61, Barre, Vermont, on November 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Stephen T. Bartlett, Barre Supervisory Union District No. 61, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3523A1.txt
  • procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of correct application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Crispus Attucks fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Crispus Attucks YouthBuild Charter School, York, Pennsylvania, on June 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Chris Ginder, Crispus Attucks YouthBuild Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3524A1.txt
  • copy of the Block 6 Certification, completed and signed. The record shows that Lynn failed to submit a Block 6 Certification. Thus, Lynn's arguments relating to a server error fail to address the problem of the missing Block 6 Certification. Therefore, we deny Lynn's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lynn Public Library, Mt. Victory, Ohio, on January 29, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gerard Fallon, Lynn Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3525A1.txt
  • after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Memphis City filed its appeal on May 27, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Memphis City School District, Memphis, Tennessee on May 27, 2003, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Hazelton, Memphis City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3526A1.txt
  • the service provider listed on the FCC Form 471 application. It was Waldwick's responsibility to provide SLD with accurate information regarding its agreement with the relevant service provider on the FCC Form 471 application, and such information was not provided. Therefore, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bergen County Technical Schools on behalf of Waldwick School District, Waldwick, New Jersey, on January 28, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from, John A. Serapiglia, Jr., Bergen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3527A1.txt
  • with our rules and procedures. As for White Plains contention that the flow of information regarding deadlines was interrupted, the FCC has found that confusion about the program's requirements is not grounds for a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by White Plains City School District, White Plains, New York, on January 6, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard C. Lasselle, White Plains City School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3557A1.txt
  • applicants should not be permitted to amend completed FCC Forms 471 to revise its application after closure of the filing window deadline. Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part Gasconade's Request for Review and remand this matter to SLD for processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gasconade County R-1 School District, Hermann, Missouri, on January 16, 2002, is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and REMANDED to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-35A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 6, 2002, by Kershaw County School District, Camden, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linda Shaylor, Kershaw County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3630A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Atchison PS filed its appeal on September 22, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 22, 2003, by Atchison Public Schools, Atchison, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Corbin Witt, Atchison Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 22, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3631A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 25, 2003, by Cedar County Library District, Stockton, Missouri, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3632A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Merely stating that a letter was not received in a timely manner at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 19, 2003, by Monmouth Ocean Educational Services Commission, Tinton Falls, New Jersey, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3634A1.txt
  • forth in the Commission's rules and orders. Specifically, the relevant issue is whether this equipment is ``necessary to transmit information within one or more instructional buildings of a single school campus.'' The type of technology employed to provide this functionality is not relevant to the eligibility determination. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lower Yukon School District, Mountain Village, Alaska, on April 18, 2001 is GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ray J.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3635A1.txt
  • the additional documentation that Quillayute provided on appeal. The documentation provided by Quillayute clarifies that the nine cellular phones included in the funding request were for eligible purposes. Accordingly, we grant Quillayute's Request for Review and remand FRN 531822 to SLD for action consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 18, 2001, by Olympic Peninsula Consultants on behalf of Quillayute Valley School District, Forks, Washington IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Bennett,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3636A1.txt
  • therefore categorized as Priority Two internal connections, maintenance on this equipment would also be classified as such. We therefore conclude the SLD appropriately reclassified the funding request as Priority Two internal connections, and that FRN 814245 was correctly denied. Accordingly, we deny Des Moines's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Des Moines Municipal School District No. 22, Des Moines, New Mexico on June 20, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Karen Doherty, Des Moines Municipal School District
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3637A1.txt
  • application that would have allowed SLD to easily discern the appropriate funding year. Specifically, Sayville failed to indicate the service start or end dates for the funding requests in Block 5 of the application. Therefore, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sayville Library, Sayville, New York, on July 8, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Marsha Greenspan, Sayville Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 8, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3681A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, West Harvey-Dixmoor filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 6, 2003, by West Harvey-Dixmoor Public School District #147, Harvey, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Garvin Burton, West Harvey-Dixmoor Public School District #147, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-36A1.txt
  • when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, St. Patrick School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 26, 2002, by St. Patrick School, Jersey City, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3740A1.txt
  • will be directed to the subcontractor that receives funding from the Good Samaritan under the terms of the Tennessee Order. Further, to the extent that the Good Samaritan receives funding as a subcontractor to ENA, COMAD procedures will be directed to the Good Samaritan. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification filed by BellSouth Corporation on September 30, 2003, is GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Immediate Relief filed by the State of Tennessee, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-379A1.txt
  • form merely serves as a general guide for average completion, and some applications may take longer. In light of these considerations, we conclude that Lacey has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lacey Township School District, Lanoka Harbor, New Jersey, on January 24, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William R. Lake, Lacey Township School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-380A1.txt
  • process, Siskiyou should have been able to turn to other bidders for better service if its choice of provider was not satisfactory. After reviewing the material before us, we conclude that Siskiyou has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Siskiyou Count Library, Yreka, California, on April 26, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Pat Harper and Kathy Fueston, Siskiyou County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-382A1.txt
  • to correct their applications during the appeals process would result in undue confusion, delay, and administrative burden. In conclusion, we find that CSF did not timely comply with SLD's request for validation of its discount rate, and therefore affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Children's Store Front School, New York, New York, on May 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bruno Navasky, Children's Store Front, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-383A1.txt
  • We conclude that the particular facts of this case do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. Craig County's inadvertent omission of necessary information from its October Form 486 does not constitute good cause for a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Craig County Public Schools, New Castle, Virginia on July 22, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Adele Morris, Craig County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 22, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-394A1.txt
  • that SLD erred in denying Norristown's request. Cellular Digital Packet Data service, which is a digital transmission service, is eligible for discounts. It is a telecommunications service, irrespective of the fact that it may link to a Library Automated Catalogue, which is not itself eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Montgomery County-Norristown Public Library, Norristown, Pennsylvania on July 18, 2002 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application for discounts filed by Montgomery County-Norristown Public Library IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-395A1.txt
  • to its filing deadlines. As we have consistently held in the past, it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its appeals. Therefore, we conclude that Columbus Unified has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on December 2, 2002, by Columbus Unified School District 493, Lawrence, Kansas, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-396A1.txt
  • is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Eastchester fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Eastchester Union Free School District, Eastchester, New York, on December 19, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-397A1.txt
  • problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Here, Huron ISD fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Huron Intermediate School District, Bad Axe, Michigan, on December 19, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-398A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Thus, Immaculate Heart fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 17, 2002, by Immaculate Heart of Mary-St. Casimir School, Lansing, Michigan, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-399A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD decisions on its behalf. Thus, St. Joseph fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on October 28, 2002, by St. Joseph University Heights, Buffalo, New York, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-39A1.txt
  • deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Petitioner has not submitted adequate proof that the facts relating to its application present special circumstances warranting a waiver of program rules. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by The Bridge Academy, Bridgeport, Connecticut on September 13, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Timothy Dutton, The Bridge Academy, Bridgeport, Connecticut, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-400A1.txt
  • when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Thus, St. Lucy School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal with SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on October 30, 2002, by St. Lucy School, Newark, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-401A1.txt
  • waiver of filing deadlines. Applicants that wait until the last minute before submitting their appeals risk untimely filing. Because Stafford Municipal failed to file a timely appeal, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Stafford Municipal's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Stafford Municipal School District, Stafford, Texas on October 4, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charlotte Holden, Stafford Municipal School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-402A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Stanfield Elementary fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 22, 2002, by Stanfield Elementary School District No. 24, Stanfield, Arizona, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-403A1.txt
  • seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Welch's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Welch Public Schools, Welch, Oklahoma, on December 26, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from R. C. McKeon, Welch Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 26, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-40A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-40A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-40A1.txt
  • from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Petitioner's excuse of employee inexperience is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of program rules. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Harris County School District, Hamilton Georgia on July 30, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Andrews, Harris County Board of Education, Hamilton Georgia, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-41A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-41A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-41A1.txt
  • was omitted from the application. We conclude, however, that SLD's decision is supported by precedent and the underlying record. The record indicates that a completed Block 4 worksheet was not included in Jefferson County's originally filed application. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jefferson County School District, Madras, Oregon on August 19, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kathryn Beebee, Jefferson County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-42A1.txt
  • deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Santa Ana has not presented any special circumstances warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on July 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-453A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 30, 2002, by Dubuque Community Schools, Dubuque, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles Ellis, Dubuque Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 30, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-454A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Huron ISD's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Huron ISD's initial request, Huron ISD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Huron Intermediate School District, Bad Axe, Michigan, on December 19, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Mayes, Huron Intermediate School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-455A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 5, 2002, by the Spurwink School, Portland, Maine, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Philene Berry, The Spurwink School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 5, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-457A1.txt
  • Rural Health Care Division of the Univeral Service Administrative Company regarding RWHC's requests for universal service support for funding years 2001 and 2002. On January 14, 2003, RWHC submitted a Request to Withdraw the above-captioned petition. We grant the Request to Withdraw and dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to Withdraw submitted by Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative, filed January 14, 2003, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-601A1.txt
  • of judgment along with the appropriate court documents demonstrating resolution. In the event that ECOT ultimately refiles its Request for Review, it should address the impact of the Ohio State Court litigation on ECOT's entitlement to discounts under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow on January 3, 2001 is DISMISSED without prejudice to renew within 60 days of judgment in the Ohio State Court litigation. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-755A1.txt
  • to eligible services. With respect to SLD contacting applicants concerning errors in the applications, the Wireline Competition Bureau has previously held that the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided rests with applicants, not with SLD. Therefore, we deny South Valley's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by South Valley Academy, Albuquerque, New Mexico, on August 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan Marks, South Valley Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 12, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-756A1.txt
  • the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. An applicant's failure to submit all the required Blocks of the FCC Form 471 does not create special circumstances warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center for Russian Jewry, on behalf of Be'er Hagolah Institute, Brooklyn, New York, on July 16, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Pearl Kaufman, The Center for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-757A1.txt
  • its toll-free number. In addition, lack of Internet access does not provide grounds for relief because information is alternately available through a toll-free telephone number. Finally, continued financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Hasbrouck Heights School District, Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, on February 19, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joseph Bellino, Hasbrouck Heights School District, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-758A1.txt
  • Carlisle Olive's argument that SLD took approximately 10 weeks to notify the library that it had missed the deadline is irrelevant to the waiver analysis. Therefore, we conclude that New Carlisle Olive has failed to demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by New Carlisle Olive, New Carlisle, Indiana, on April 12, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Stephen Boggs, New Carlisle Olive Township Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-761A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Fair Play's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Fair Play's initial request, Fair Play may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fair Play R-2 School District, Fair Play, Missouri, on February 20, 2003, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Greg Whaley and Brian Mitchell, Fair Play R-2 School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-762A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Glades County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Glades County's initial request, Glades County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Glades County School Board, Moore Haven, Florida, on January 29, 2003, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Norman Hughes, Glades County School Board, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-763A1.txt
  • that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 145268 and 145295. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Mitel's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 145268 and 145295. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Mitel's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 29, 2002, by Mitel Communications Solutions, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Correen Oestreich, Mitel Communications Solutions, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 29, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-764A1.txt
  • the applicant and the Commission should Marshall County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRN 582629 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to its merits. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 4, 2001 by the Marshall County School District, Moundsville, West Virginia, IS DENIED as to FRN 592758 and REMANDED as to FRN 582629 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-844A1.txt
  • the general rule. We therefore grant a waiver of the October 28, 2001 deadline to the Applicants, and remand to SLD for further processing of their corrected FCC Forms 486. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the Waiver Request filed by Eastern Lebanon County School District, Myerstown, Pennsylvania, on February 20, 2002 IS GRANTED, and these applications are REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Waiver Request filed by Newport News Public Schools, Newport
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-852A1.txt
  • of incorrect advice from SLD. Commission precedent establishes that where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, Talladega, Alabama on January 13, 2003, IS DISMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-853A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Glen Mills' Request for Waiver to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Glen Mills' initial request, Glen Mills may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Glen Mills Schools, Concordville, Pennsylvania, on February 24, 2003, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary McNeal, Glen Mills Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-854A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Norfolk Public Schools' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Norfolk Public Schools' initial request, Norfolk Public Schools may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Norfolk Public Schools, Norfolk, Virginia, on December 24, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Futty, Julie Keesling, and Frederick Schmitt, Norfolk Public Schools, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-855A1.txt
  • of incorrect advice from SLD. Commission precedent establishes that where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ventnor Educational Community Complex, Ventnor City, New Jersey on January 30, 2003, IS DISMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1059A1.txt
  • a Funding Commitment Decision Letter that was dated October 20, 2000. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that the Schools and Libraries Division received and accepted Catholic Memorial's FCC Form 486 for FRN 395982. Accordingly, Catholic Memorial's Request for Waiver is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed February 26, 2002, by Catholic Memorial School, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Peter Burleigh, Catholic Memorial, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-108A1.txt
  • to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice City of Espanola's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, City of Espanola may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 7, 2003, by City of Espanola Finance Department, Espanola, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lillian Brooks, City of Espanola Finance Department, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-109A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Hampton County's Request for Waiver to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Hampton County may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on October 21, 2003, by Hampton County School District 2, Estill, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Thompson, Hampton County School District 2, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-110A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Monessen requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 602799. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Monessen's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 602799. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Monessen's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed March 10, 2003, by Monessen Public Library, Monessen, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from S. Fred Natale, Monessen Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-111A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Murrieta Valley's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Murrieta Valley may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 12, 2003, by Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Murrieta, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Julie April, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1128A1.txt
  • manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Four County and North Penn have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 26, 2003, by Four County Library System, Vestal, New York, IS DISMISSED, and the Requests for Review filed on March 22, 2004, by Gloucester City Library, Gloucester City, New Jersey and on May 13, 2003, by North Penn School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-112A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, NAFI failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on NAFI misunderstanding of the timing deadline does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on April 21, 2003, by North American Family Institute, Danvers, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniel Nakamoto, North American Family Institute, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-113A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Alachua failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on Alachua misunderstanding of the program rules does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on June 24, 2003, by School Board of Alachua County, Gainesville, Florida, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-114A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss St. Catherine's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, St. Catherine may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 17, 2003, by Saint Catherine of Genoa School, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Collins, Saint Catherine of Genoa School, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-115A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Tunkhannock's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Tunkhannock may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 31, 2003, by Tunkhannock Area School District, Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Barb Landon, Tunkhannock Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1253A1.txt
  • circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and where strict compliance with the rule would be inconsistent with the public interest. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the applicants here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the referenced Requests for Review filed by Bedford Area School District, Bedford, Pennsylvania, on May 12, 2003; Glenwood Community School District, Glenwood, Iowa, on May 22, 2003; Hunterdon Central Regional High School, Flemington, New Jersey, on May 12, 2003; Immaculate Conception School, Everett, Washington, on May 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1394A1.txt
  • existence of New Haven results in an improved educational experience for adult students in New Haven, Connecticut. However, the provision of discounted services for entities such as adult education centers is beyond the scope of our statutory authority and would divert support from the program's intended beneficiaries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Haven Adult Education Center on August 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Vincent Del Prete, New Haven Adult Education Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1395A1.txt
  • under program rules in effect for Funding Year 2001. We emphasize that the ultimate burden of proving eligibility remains with the applicant. Accordingly, we grant in part Fairfax's Request for Review of FRN 673750 and remand in part to SLD for action consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review of Funding Request Number 673756 filed by Funds for Learning on behalf of Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia on September 6, 2001, IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1396A1.txt
  • from an SLD employee does not absolve an applicant from following the program requirements. The mere assertion that a letter was not received is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. Consistent with existing precedent as described above, the Telecommunications Access Policy Division denies the above-captioned Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Austin Independent School District, Austin, Texas, on November 19, 2002; Avon Local Board of Education, Avon, Ohio, on November 6, 2002; Navajo Evangelical Lutheran Mission, Rock Point, Arizona, on June 13, 2003; and Vermont Academy, Saxtons River, Vermont, on October 15, 2002; are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1397A1.txt
  • Valley requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 849626. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Castro Valley's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 849626. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Castro Valley's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 13, 2004, by Castro Valley Unified School District, Castro Valley, California, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steve Mei, Castro Valley Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1398A1.txt
  • meet the October 28, 2001 deadline for Funding Year 2001 discounts could obtain discounts for services received on or after the date that its FCC Form 486 was postmarked. Consistent with our precedent in Craig County, we affirm SLD's decision and deny LPSD's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request filed by Lake and Peninsula School District, King Salmon, Alaska, on September 16, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Niedermeyer, Lake and Peninsula School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1399A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Ridgewood requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 644434. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Ridgewood's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 644434. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Ridgewood's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed February 6, 2003, by Ridgewood Public Schools, Ridgewood, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carole K. Casey, Ridgewood Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1400A1.txt
  • District requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 761447. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Miller District's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 761447. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Miller District's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 6, 2003, by Miller District #210, Marseilles, Illinois, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jane M. Bauer, Miller District #210, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1503A1.txt
  • a detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Lucia Mar Unified School District, Arroyo Grande, California, on May 24, 2002; Ontario Local Schools, Mansfield, Ohio, on October 9, 2002; School Administrative District 04, Guilford, Maine, on December 19, 2002; and Traverse City Area Public Schools, Traverse City, Michigan, on March 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1842A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Holyoke's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Holyoke may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 18, 2003, by Holyoke School District Re-1J, Holyoke, Colorado IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carla Porter, Holyoke School District, to Federal Communications Commission, dated December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2047A1.txt
  • party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. NPP should have filed its Request for Review by April 8, 2002 in order for it to be timely filed. NPP filed its Request for Review on October 9, 2003. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 9, 2003, by National Public Phone Company IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Anita Cheng Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig D. Joyce, Counsel for National Public Phone Company to the Federal Communications Commission, dated October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2485A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Allendale filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 15, 2004 by Allendale County Schools, Allendale, South Carolina IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Renee Sanders, Allendale County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-254A1.txt
  • equal footing. Further, filing an application without the certification page does not constitute substantial compliance, because signature certification is fundamental to the administration of the SLD program. Finally, financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Blessed Sacrament, Crutcho, Freedom Area and Milwaukee on July 10, June 11, July 5, and July 8, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-255A1.txt
  • we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Dunellen failed to comply with the deadline and Dunellen's assertions do not justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 17, 2003, by Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings, on behalf of Dunellen School District, Newtown, Pennsylvania, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-256A1.txt
  • strict adherence to the general rule. Parsippany-Troy's reasons are not special circumstances warranting a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We find that SLD's decision is consistent with our precedent and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by SLD. Therefore, we deny Parsippany-Troy's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Parsippany-Troy Hills Township District, Parsippany, New Jersey on November 5, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles V. Mole, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-257A1.txt
  • rules. We have consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the accurate and timely submission of the application. Further, we have concluded that detrimental impact alone does not create special circumstances that warrant a waiver. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Winans Academy of Performing Arts on October 30, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tony Mottley, Winans Academy of Performing Arts, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2604A1.txt
  • Dutchess County BOCES seeks review of SLD's denial of Dutchess County BOCES' request to receive discounted services. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Dutchess County BOCES is seeking. Dutchess County BOCES' Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Poughkeepsie, New York, on March 29, 2004 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Acting Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Laura Zylberberg, Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2905A1.txt
  • Year 2000 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved OCM BOCES's request for BEAR payment assistance for Funding Request Numbers 471531, 471623, 480855. Accordingly, the Division dismisses OCM BOCES's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 15, 2004, by Mackenzie Hughes LLP, on behalf of, Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES, Syracuse, New York, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Anthony Hanley, Mackenzie Hughes LLP, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-294A1.txt
  • the Bureau determined that an applicant in Funding Year 2002 filing a consortium application could have reasonably determined that a completed Worksheet A satisfied the relevant worksheet requirement. We therefore reverse SLD's decision and remand ESC's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Educational Service Unit #1, Wakefield, Nebraska on July 18, 2002 IS GRANTED and its application is remanded to SLD for further consideration in accordance with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-295A1.txt
  • would eviscerate the benefits of having a filing window at all. In light of this, we do not believe that the denial of Fennville's request creates the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Fennville Public Schools on December 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jody Osbon/M. Klosner, Fennville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 15, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-296A1.txt
  • to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, we have consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Applicants must comply with program rules, including the application deadline, in order to be eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Freeman School District No. 358 on July 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jan Davis, Freeman School District No. 358, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-297A1.txt
  • general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Griswold's misunderstanding of the Commission's rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny Griswold's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Griswold Community Schools, Griswold, Iowa, on May 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rich Mortensen, Griswold Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-298A1.txt
  • the Bureau determined that an applicant in Funding Year 2002 filing a consortium application could have reasonably determined that a completed Worksheet A satisfied the relevant worksheet requirement. We therefore reverse SLD's decision and remand Hartford's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hartford Public Schools, Hartford, Connecticut on December 16, 2002 IS GRANTED and its application is remanded to SLD for further consideration in accordance with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2999A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice the Appellants' Requests for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, the Appellants may then appeal to the Commission, if they believe such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on May 19, 2004, by Al-Hikmah Elementary School, Prospect Park, New Jersey, on August 12, 2004, by Genesis School, Kansas City, Missouri, and on June 7, 2004, by Lutheran High School of St. Charles County, St. Peters, Missouri ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-299A1.txt
  • the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Lafayette's misunderstanding of the Commission's rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny Lafayette's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lafayette Township School, Lafayette, New Jersey on November 21, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carol J. Calella, Lafayette Township School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-300A1.txt
  • Internet access, stating that the Commission may not waive a statutory deadline such as the October 28, 2001 deadline. We conclude that our determination in the East Carroll Order applies to Lake Erie's Request for Review. Therefore, we affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lake Erie Educational Computer Association on May 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lloyd Wright, Lake Erie Educational Computer Association, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-301A1.txt
  • would eviscerate the benefits of having a filing window at all. In light of this, we do not believe that the denial of Maine's request creates the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Maine School Administrative District No. 20 on September 19, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeannette Condon, Maine School Administrative District No. 20, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-302A1.txt
  • (2) facts unknown to petitioner until after the Request for Review was filed. Each of the arguments raised by Marin County in its Petition for Reconsideration was raised in its prior Request for Review, and addressed in the Marin County Order. Therefore, we deny Marin County's Petition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Marin County Office of Education, San Rafael, California, on December 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau The Petition was filed December 9, 2002, seeking reconsideration of Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-303A1.txt
  • the application. Moreover, Meade's assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on the service it provides to its patrons does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Meade County Public Library on December 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Mitchell, Meade County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 10, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-304A1.txt
  • SLD must review and process each year, it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Olathe Public Library on January 17, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Linse, Olathe Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 17, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-305A1.txt
  • filing of the application out of window is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. The Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Pratt Unified School District No. 382 on December 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bob Lee, Pratt Unified School District No. 382, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-306A1.txt
  • provides documentation indicating that its Form 471 application package was postmarked prior to the close of the filing window deadline. We therefore grant Saint Vincent's request for review and remand the matter to SLD, so that Saint Vincent's Form 471 may be processed as a timely application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Vincent's on August 5, 2002 IS GRANTED and Saint Vincent's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paul Michael, Saint Vincent's, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-307A1.txt
  • to the late submission of FCC Form 470 is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of our rules. The Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by St. Boniface School on January 15, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Marylou Pawlowski, St. Boniface School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 15, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-308A1.txt
  • of the language on the face of SMU Invoice No. 1 led SLD to the erroneous assumption that Shawano-Gresham had submitted an invoice for electrical utility charges. The new information offered on appeal, in SMU Invoice No. 2, provided SLD the opportunity to correct this assumption. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shawano-Gresham School District, Shawano, Wisconsin, on October 3, 2002, IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-309A1.txt
  • eviscerate the benefits of having a filing window at all. In light of this, we do not believe that the denial of South Dakota's application creates the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs on January 21, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tammy Bauck, South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-310A1.pdf
  • be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, we have consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Applicants must comply with program rules, including the application deadline, in order to be eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Waterville-Elysian-Morristown Public School on November 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joel Whitehurst, Waterville-Elysian-Morristown Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 14, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3193A1.txt
  • filing the corrected version shortly after being apprised of any mistake. Moreover, the deadline involved a first-time information request. The Petitioners sought discounts only for telecommunications services, and the Commission has authority to waive the deadline with respect to requests that involve only telecommunications services. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 , and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by the Chesterfield County Public Schools, Chesterfield, Virginia, on July 23, 2003; Georgia Technology Authority, Atlanta, Georgia, on December 16, 2002; Columbus School District, Columbus, Wisconsin, on January 30, 2003; and School District of Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, on September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3194A1.txt
  • Services supports our determination in the Whiteville Order that the underlying contract expired in December 2000. Because Petitioners failed to submit an FCC Form 470 for the services rendered after December 2000, in contravention of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements, we must deny their Petitions for Reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed on November 27, 2002 by Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina; on November 29, 2002 by Henderson, Baxter, Taylor & Gatchel, P.A. on behalf of Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina; and on November 29, 2002 by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-344A1.txt
  • responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Merely stating that a letter or notice was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on July 31, 2003, by Education Legislative Service, Inc., El Cajon, California and Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, California, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-345A1.txt
  • that SLD must review and process each year, it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady of Victory Academy, Dobbs Ferry, New York on February 20, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joanne Kouzan, Our Lady of Victory Academy, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3560A1.txt
  • Company (Administrator). For a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Petitioners filed appeals after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny their Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on August 30, 2004 by Approach Learning and Assessment Centers, Santa Ana, California; April 8, 2004 by Fremont County Library System, Lander, Wyoming; July 19, 2004 by South Baltimore Learning Center, Baltimore, Maryland; and June 22, 2004 by Yeshivath Vinitz D'Khal Torah Chaim,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3561A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance date of the SLD decision. Here, the Petitioners filed their appeals to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on March 17, 2004 by Bayshore School District, Daly City, California; May 18, 2004 by Clarkdale-Jerome School, Clarkdale, Arizona; and May 26, 2004 by Mandaree Public School District 36, Mandaree, North Dakota ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3562A1.txt
  • was rendered. Appeals seeking review of decisions by SLD issued before August 13, 2001 must be filed with SLD within 30 days of the issuance of the decision. Coarsegold's appeal was filed June 5, 2000, in contravention of this rule. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Coarsegold Union School District, Coarsegold, California on June 19, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunication Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jon Corippo, Coarsegold Union School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3563A1.txt
  • For a review of a decision by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Alvarado filed its appeal after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 3, 2004 by Alvarado Independent School, Alvarado, Texas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kyle Berger, Alvarado Independent School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 3, 2004 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3564A1.txt
  • detrimental impact on a request does not create special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed July 6, 2004, by Grace Lutheran Day School, Queens Village, New York; August 30, 2004, by Messenger Public Library of North Aurora, North Aurora, Illinois; July 2, 2004, by Mosaica Education, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; June 17, 2004, by Pike County Board of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3565A1.txt
  • SLD issued before August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Moscow filed its appeal on May 17, 1999, after the 30-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requestfor Review filed by Moscow Unified School District, Satanta, Kansas on May 17, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Larry Philippi, Moscow Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 1999
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3566A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Baraga's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Baraga may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 24, 2004, by Baraga Area Schools, Baraga, Michigan IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynn Ketola, Baraga Area Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3567A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Decatur's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Decatur may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 21, 2004, by Decatur Public Schools, Decatur, Arkansas IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Melissa Erks, Decatur Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3568A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Guamani School's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Guamani School may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 23, 2004, by Guamani School, Guayama, Puerto Rico IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Eduardo Delgado, Guamani School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 23, 2004
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-367A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Blackstone filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 8, 2003, by Nottoway County Library, on behalf of Blackstone Public Library, Crewe, Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Pierce, Blackstone Public Library, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3686A1.txt
  • years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Because Aberdeen did not list its request as one for Internet access on its FCC Forms 470 and 471 consistently, it failed to satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. Consequently, we must deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aberdeen School District No. 5, on July 10, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael R. Williams, Aberdeen School District No. 5, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-368A1.txt
  • Review filed by the Milwaukee Public Schools (Milwaukee PS), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, seeking review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding. On January 12, 2004, Milwaukee PS requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Milwaukee Public Schools, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on December 16, 2003 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Davis, Milwaukee Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-369A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Monroe Township's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Monroe Township may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 15, 2003, by Monroe Township Board of Education, Williamstown, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John Armano, Monroe Township Board of Education, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-370A1.txt
  • application filed by Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois. Specifically, Systems Concepts seeks waiver of the Commission's rules for FRN 712607. Upon review of the record, however, we find that Chicago Public Schools cancelled FRN 712607. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Systems Concepts' Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Systems Concepts, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, on October 18, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Cynthia Nielsen-Morgan, Systems Concepts, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-371A1.txt
  • World requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 630532. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Terra World's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 630532. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Terra World's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed May 30, 2003, by Terra World, Inc., Independence, Kansas, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mike Hughey, Terra World, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2003
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-372A1.txt
  • has cited the wrong Form 470 in an FRN but did have a Form 470 that supports the FRN and cites that correct Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. We therefore reverse and remand Prattsburgh's application for further consideration in light of Form 470 USCN 653700000151778. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 12, 2000, by Erie 1 BOCES Western New York Regional Information Center filed on behalf of Prattsburgh Central School District, is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3894A1.txt
  • Commission's competitive bidding rules by signing the FCC Form 471 or service provider agreement before the allowable contract date. The Bureau has also concluded that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information on their FCC Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center Area School District, on April 4, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Scott A. Antoline, Center Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 4, 2003
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3895A1.txt
  • only one provider in Raymond-Knowles's service area does not relieve Raymond-Knowles of the responsibility to comply with program rules. The Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Raymond-Knowles Elementary School, on July 23, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linda Lamont, Raymond-Knowles Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3896A1.txt
  • services in Funding Years 1999, 2000, and 2001, in violation of the Commission's rules. Terrebonne states that it was nevertheless awarded funds for this service since Funding Year 1999. We therefore direct SLD to initiate commitment adjustment procedures in connection with the appropriate funding year service requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Terrebonne Parish School District, on August 6, 2002, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustments in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3897A1.txt
  • Commission's competitive bidding rules by signing the FCC Form 471 or service provider agreement before the allowable contract date. The Bureau has also concluded that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information on their FCC Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ticonderoga Central School District, Ticonderoga, New York, on April 9, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Dodd, Ticonderoga Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3898A1.txt
  • as possible in order to deal with any problems that may arise. In this case, we find that SLD should have notified Totowa of the deficiency in the Form 470 in time for Totowa to submit an in-window Form 471 that complied with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Totowa Borough Public Schools, on March 28, 2002, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3899A1.txt
  • IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.106(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.106(a)(1), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Thomas Communications & Technology, on behalf of Paramus School District, on October 15, 2003, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Thomas Communications & Technology, on behalf of Paramus School District, on August 25, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau (Paramus Order). See Paramus Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 19515, para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4007A1.txt
  • inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. Each of the petitioners in the Requests for Review violated one or more of the above-cited competitive bidding requirements. In keeping with our prior decisions, we deny the Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Adel-Desoto-Minburn Community School, Adel, Iowa, on November 15, 2002; Baltimore County Public Schools, Towson, Maryland, on August 30, 2002; Derby Public Schools, Derby, Connecticut, on December 16, 2002; Madison School District 321, Rexburg, Indiana, on November 21, 2002, are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-406A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Heritage's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Heritage may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 5, 2004, by Heritage Public Library, McDonald, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Connie Bongiorni, Heritage Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-407A1.txt
  • assertion, Jackson PS attaches a copy of the UPS tracking information. Based on the underlying record, we conclude that Jackson PS's application was postmarked by the filing window deadline. We therefore grant Jackson PS's Request for Review and remand Jackson PS's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jackson Public School District, Jackson, Mississippi on August 4, 2003 IS GRANTED, and Jackson PS's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-408A1.txt
  • thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 29, 2003, by Maricopa County School Superintendent's Office, Phoenix, Arizona, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-428A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Beth Jacob filed its appeal on December 26, 2002, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 26, 2002, by Beth Jacob High School, Brooklyn, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Yitzchok Kaplan, Beth Jacob High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-429A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 21, 2003, by Sunnyside School District, Sunnyside, Washington, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-432A1.txt
  • that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Coleman's Request for Waiver is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Coleman Community Schools on January 23, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Allen Spalding, Coleman Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 23, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-433A1.txt
  • be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Applicants must comply with program rules, including the application deadline, in order to be eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winnebago Public Schools, Winnebago, Nebraska, on February 23, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard B. Peterson, Meritide, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 23, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-460A1.txt
  • of the first funding year following the effective date of the statute. Because Aleutians East was receiving discounts on Internet access, and was therefore subject to the October 28, 2001 deadline imposed by the CIPA statute, we are without authority to waive that deadline in this case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aleutians East Borough School District on February 12, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wesley L. Knapp, Ph.D, Aleutians East Borough School District, to Schools and Libraries Division,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-461A1.txt
  • Form 470 RNL; or (2) checked the website to make certain that its Form 470 had been posted. The Bureau has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Fredonia's Request for Waiver is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Fredonia-Moccasin Unified School District No. 6 on December 5, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steven L. Winward, Fredonia-Moccasin Unified School District No. 6, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-462A1.txt
  • of our rules. We therefore deny Tallulah Falls' waiver request. Unified Niobrara-Lynch Schools Niobrara-Lynch stated that it missed the deadline because of staffing problems. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with our rules and procedures. Accordingly, Niobrara-Lynch's waiver request is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Freehold Regional High School District, Englishtown, New Jersey, on September 12, 2002; Giltner Public Schools, Giltner, Nebraska, on July 10, 2002; Gold Oak Union Elementary School, Placerville, California, on March 11, 2002; Pine Castle Christian Academy, Orlando, Florida, on August 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-463A1.txt
  • by filing the corrected version shortly after being apprised of the mistake. Moreover, the deadline involved a first-time information request. Stafford also sought discounts only for telecommunications services, and the Commission has authority to waive the deadline with respect to requests that involve only telecommunications services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Stafford Public Schools, Stafford Springs, Connecticut on November 5, 2002 IS GRANTED and REMANDED TO SLD to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jill Klum, Stafford
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-572A1.txt
  • timely submission of its application. As a result, neither employee illness nor misunderstanding relieves applicants of their responsibility to understand and comply with the program rules or procedures. Consistent with existing precedent as described above, the Telecommunications Access Policy Division denies the above-captioned Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Jackson Public School District, Jackson, Mississippi, on December 5, 2002; Stafford Public Schools, Stafford Springs, Connecticut, on October 23, 2002; Syosset Central School District, Syosset, New York, on November 14, 2002; Villa Park School District 45, Villa Park, Illinois, on December 19, 2002;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-589A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Albuquerque failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on Albuquerque misunderstanding of the program rules does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 7, 2003, by Albuquerque Public Schools, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-590A1.txt
  • the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 876693. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that the Schools and Libraries Division approved Anaheim City's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 876693. Accordingly, Anaheim City's Request for Waiver id dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed November 11, 2002, by Anaheim City School District, Anaheim, California, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Barry Bettger, Anaheim City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-596A1.txt
  • for Review filed by the Heavener Public Schools, Heavener, Oklahoma, seeking review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding. On May 30, 2001, Heavener Public Schools requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Heavener Public Schools, Heavener, Oklahoma, on November 3, 1999 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lance Ford, Heavener Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-597A1.txt
  • August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Jesse Jackson Academy filed its appeal on December 29, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jesse Jackson Academy, Houston, Texas on December 29, 2003, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jesse W. Jackson, Jesse Jackson Academy, Houston, Texas, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-598A1.txt
  • filed by the Ralls Independent School District (Ralls ISD), Ralls, Texas, seeking review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding. On May 9, 2001, Ralls ISD requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ralls Independent School District, Ralls, Texas, on February 11, 2000 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Holly Lee and Dagobert Azam, Ralls Independent School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-599A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, St. Bartholomew filed its appeal on October 7, 2002, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Bartholomew Consolidated School, Cincinnati, Ohio on October 7, 2002 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Theresa Mangold, St. Batholomew Consolidated School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 7,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-600A1.txt
  • and waited the 28-day competitive bidding period, it carefully considered all bids before choosing to continue service under its existing contract. Because the record does not address or resolve this question, we remand Merrimac's application to SLD to consider this issue and for all necessary further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Middle Peninsula Juvenile Detention Commission, Merrimac Center, on December 6, 2002, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-980A1.txt
  • to guard against the occurrence of errors and fraud. Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Donna Public Library, Donna, Texas, on October 18, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal regarding SLD application numbers 320003 and 324627, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-981A1.txt
  • and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the rule. We find no such special circumstances in this case. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 3, 2003, by Grant Joint Union High School District, McClellan, California, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-982A1.txt
  • Memphis, Tennessee, seeking reconsideration of decisions by the Telecommunications Access Policy Division and the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding to Memphis CSD. On March 17, 2004, Memphis CSD requested that its Petition for Reconsideration be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Memphis City School District, Memphis, Tennessee, on December 2, 2003 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Petition for Reconsideration of the Request for Review of the Decision of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-983A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Murchison ISD failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on misunderstanding of the program rules does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 21, 2003, by Murchison Independent School District, Murchison, Texas, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-984A1.txt
  • detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the applicants here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Sacred Heart School, Danbury, Connecticut on May 28, 2003; GEMS Academy, Humble, Texas on June 16, 2003; Pawnee Independent School District, Pawnee, Texas on June 4, 2003; Adel Elementary Lake County School District #21, Adel, Oregon on May 8, 2003; Port
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-985A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Waterville's Request for Waiver to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Waterville may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on December 24, 2003, by Waterville Public Schools, Waterville, Maine IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Reny, Waterville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated December 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-986A1.txt
  • it omitted certain information required under SLD's minimum processing standards. Specifically, Wood-Ridge did not provide the Funding Year in Block 1. Consistent with existing precedent, we conclude that Wood-Ridge's application was appropriately returned for failure to satisfy minimum processing standards. We therefore deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wood-Ridge Board of Education, Wood-Ridge, New Jersey on June 28, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael D. Leary, Wood-Ridge Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1062A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Carrizozo Municipal Schools, Carrizozo, New Mexico, on November 22, 2004; Florence Unified School District #1, Florence, Arizona, on May 14, 2004; Glen Carbon Centennial Library, Glen Carbon, Illinois, on August 26, 2004; Glenn County Office of Education, Willows, California, on November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1063A1.txt
  • detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Cold Spring has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Cold Spring School District 750, Cold Spring, Texas, on November 22, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kurt Langer, Cold Spring School District 750, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1064A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Concord School District, Concord, New Hampshire, on April 16, 2003; Floyd County Board of Education, Prestonsburg, Kentucky, on August 26, 2003; Fordland R-III School District, Fordland, Missouri, on February 23, 2004; Hull Christian School, Hull, Iowa, on April 14, 2003; Mexicayotl
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1065A1.txt
  • procedures, including filing deadlines. Hence, staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Corpus Christi has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Corpus Christi Church and School, New York, New York, on March 2, 2005, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Brother Larry Lavallee, Corpus Christi Church and School, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1066A1.txt
  • or service provider agreement before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to follow program rules. We therefore deny Custer County's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Custer County C-1 School District, Westcliffe, Colorado, on December 6, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joy L. Butts, Custer County C-1 School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1068A1.txt
  • for Waiver of the FCC Form 471 filing window deadline, there will be no need for Greenport Public Schools to file FCC Form 486 for Funding Year 2002. Therefore, we dismiss the Request for Waiver of the filing deadline for the FCC Form 486 as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Greenport Public Schools, Greenport, New York, on October 29, 2003, IS DENIED in part and DISMISSED as moot in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles Kozora, Greenport Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1069A1.txt
  • services for Funding Year 2003 of the schools and libraries universal service support program. Upon review of the record, we find that SLD has approved Orleans Parish's request for an extension of the non-recurring services deadline. Accordingly, we dismiss Orleans Parish's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Orleans Parish School District, New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 12, 2004, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau The Request for Waiver was referred to the Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1070A1.txt
  • a detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Owensboro has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Owensboro Public Schools, Owensboro, Kentucky, on June 11, 2003, IS DENIED and the request to waive the filing deadline for filing a FCC Form 471 application IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1071A1.txt
  • for why they should be excused from observing the appeals deadline when hundreds of other applicants were able to appeal on time. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine here that Petitioners have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Joint Petition for Waiver and Relief, filed by Pennsylvania Department of Education and South Dakota Department of Education, on January 24, 2005, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Joint Petition of Pennsylvania Department of Education
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1072A1.txt
  • Request for Review. It is well established law that the absence of an official record of an event is evidence of the non-occurrence of the event. Because we find that the Ponca City's Block 6 certification was not filed at all, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ponca City Public Schools, Ponca City, Oklahoma, on April 21, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Jantz, Ponca City Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1073A1.txt
  • were filed. On February 15, 2005, Saint Paul filed a Request to Withdraw its Request for Review for FCC Form 471 application number 431237. We grant Saint Paul's Request to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss Saint Paul's Request for Review for FCC Form 471 application number 431237. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to Withdraw filed by Saint Paul Public Schools, Saint Paul, Minnesota, on February 15, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1074A1.txt
  • is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Worth School District has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Worth School District 127, Worth, Illinois, on February 24, 2005, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Miller, Worth School District 127, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1077A1.txt
  • contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to provide complete and accurate information on their applications and follow program rules. We therefore deny Butte's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Butte High School of the West Boyd Unified School District, Butte, Nebraska, on October 21, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from D. Russell Lechtenberg, Butte High School, West
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1078A1.txt
  • doubt that the existence of Florida College results in an improved educational experience for students in Jacksonville, Florida. However, the provision of discounted services for entities such as community colleges is beyond the scope of our statutory authority and would divert support from the program's intended beneficiaries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Florida Community College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, on December 6, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Steven Wallace, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1079A1.txt
  • January 19, 2000, and that it took steps to inform SLD that it was unable to complete its application on January 19, 2000 due to problems with SLD's Internet site. We therefore grant Gainesville's Request for Waiver and remand its application to SLD for further processing. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Gainesville Independent School District, Gainesville, Texas, on June 30, 2000, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1080A1.txt
  • inclement weather, or misunderstanding of the rules does not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Galloway Township has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Galloway Township Board of Education, Galloway Township, New Jersey, on June 7, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gil Chapman, Galloway Township Board of Education, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-108A1.txt
  • Because USAC did not consider which party was responsible for the statutory or rule violation at issue, we find it appropriate to remand the above-captioned Requests for Review of commitment adjustment decisions to USAC for further consideration consistent with the Commission's decision in the Schools Fourth Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Ameritech Advanced Data Services, Inc. - St. Lorenz Lutheran School, Frankenmuth, Michigan, on July 14, 2004; BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. - Orleans Parish School District, New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 10, 2004; DeltaNet, Inc. - Calvery Chapel Academy, Lawrence, Kansas, on December 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1121A1.txt
  • For review of decisions by SLD, requests to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Arlington School District filed its request after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Battenkill Valley Supervisory Union, on behalf of Arlington School District, Arlington, Vermont, dated February 03, 2005, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Finch, Battenkill Valley Supervisory Union, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1122A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to provide accurate information on their applications and comply with program rules and procedures. We therefore deny Brunswick County's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Brunswick County Schools, Bolivia, North Carolina, on November 8, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Leonard Jenkins, Brunswick County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 8, 2004
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1123A1.txt
  • amounts that go beyond what they can substantiate, their funding requests will be reduced to the amount that is substantiated. Accordingly, we remand these Requests for Review and direct SLD to grant the commitment requests in accordance with this Order, unless SLD identifies other grounds for denial. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Greenbrier County School District, Cleveland, Ohio on December 22, 2003; Mason County School District, Cleveland, Ohio on March 18, 2004; Preston County School District, Cleveland, Ohio on March 18, 2004; and Raleigh County School District, Beckley, West Virginia on February 3, 2005,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1124A1.txt
  • staffing changes nor misunderstanding of the rules relieves applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Information Transport has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of the Commission's rules. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Information Transport Solutions, Inc., Wetumpka, Alabama, dated November 5, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tomi J. Selby, Information Transport Solutions, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, dated November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1125A1.txt
  • with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on August 19, 2002, IS DENIED IN PART, AND GRANTED IN PART and REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1126A1.txt
  • advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the ultimate responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sacred Heart School, Mount Holly, New Jersey, on February 5, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ronald J. Maniglia, Sacred Heart School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1127A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to provide accurate information on their applications and comply with program rules and procedures. We therefore deny St. Margaret's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Margaret's School, Middle Village, New York, on October 28, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donna Menna, St. Margaret's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1128A1.txt
  • SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, School Administrative Unit #6 filed an appeal to the Commission after the 60-day period, in contravention of Commission rules. We therefore dismiss the Request for Review. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by School Administrative Unit #6, Claremont, New Hampshire, dated November 26, 2004, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Allen Damren, School Administrative Unit #6, to Federal Communications Commission, dated November 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1129A1.txt
  • or late applications, and have those applications considered timely, would be unfair to the applicants who diligently filed their complete applications in a timely fashion. Because we find that St. John's FCC Form 471 application was filed outside of the window, we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John's School, Wahpeton, North Dakota on March 5, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wilfred Sauer, St. John's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 5, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-161A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Athens and Novacon filed appeals to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of Commission rules. We therefore deny their Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on November 12, 2004 by Athens Independent School District, Athens, Texas; and November 2, 2004 by Novacon, Rolling Meadows, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lawrence Hill, Athens Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-162A1.txt
  • than the California DoE, to verify that Mariposa had an approved technology plan was in error. Consequently, we conclude that SLD improperly denied Mariposa's funding request. We therefore grant Mariposa's Request for Review and remand Mariposa's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mariposa County Unified School District, Mariposa, California on October 31, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Mariposa's application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1725A1.txt
  • Administrative Company (USAC), which suspended payments from USAC to Miami-Dade. On June 7, 2005, Miami-Dade filed a Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Compel and the Request for Review. We grant Miami-Dade's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss Miami-Dade's Motion to Compel and its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Compel Service by Sprint-Florida, Inc., and the Appeal of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida from USAC Suspension Letter, filed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Florida, on June 7, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1726A1.txt
  • direct the Universal Service Administrative Company to release funds to Tennessee schools based on the Commission's July 2003 Tennessee Order. On June 6, 2005, Tennessee filed a Motion to Withdraw its Petition for Clarification. We grant Tennessee's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss Tennessee's Petition for Clarification. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by the Department of Education, State of Tennessee, on June 6, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1953A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1953A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1953A2.txt
  • THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY'S DECISIONS REGARDING SAFETY NET ADDITIVE SUPPORT PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED CC Docket No. 96-45 Comments Due: August 5, 2005 Reply Comments Due: August 22, 2005 On May 2, 2005, Darien Telephone Company, Inc., Logan Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company filed Requests for Review of an Administrator Decision, pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. The companies request that the Wireline Competition Bureau review decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) that reduced the companies' safety net additive support. Interested parties may file comments on or before August 5, 2005 and reply comments on or before August 22, 2005. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2176A1.txt
  • Order. We instruct SLD to provide Fayette with a detailed inquiry of the documents and information necessary for SLD to determine the eligibility of Fayette's request for funding. In remanding this matter to SLD, we make no findings as to the ultimate eligibility of the requested services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fayette County School District, Fayetteville, West Virginia, on October 7, 2003, IS GRANTED, to the extent described herein, and REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2177A1.txt
  • for the services at issue. The new information provided by NextiraOne resolves this ambiguity by clarifying that the services for FRN 606794 were installed in June 2003, after the FCC Form 486 adjusted service start date of April 23, 2003. Accordingly, we grant NextiraOne's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by NextiraOne, LLC, on behalf of Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66, Phoenix, Arizona, on April 8, 2005, IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2178A1.txt
  • When SLD determined that the Avista SPIN in SLD's database differed from the Avista SPIN on Spokane's FCC Form 486, SLD should have adjusted the information on Spokane's FCC Form 486 accordingly. We therefore grant the Request for Review and remand it to SLD for further processing. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Spokane Public Schools, Spokane, Washington, on March 20, 2003, is GRANTED and REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company, for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2320A1.txt
  • the Commission's Lifeline program for low-income consumers. These rule changes became effective on a prospective basis, beginning November 1, 1999. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, 202, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 202, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, 54.706, 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, 54.706, and 54.722, that BellSouth Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of the Commission's Fifth Circuit Remand Order IS GRANTED, IN PART, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393 (5th Cir.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2833A1.txt
  • impractical and unreasonable, as well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by the Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas, on November 8, 2004 is GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Funding Year 2003 deadline for installation of non-recurring services pursuant to FRN 1000282 is extended for the Houston Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2834A1.txt
  • Internet connectivity, would not be possible for the Houston area schools at issue without the Phonoscope modulating equipment. Thus, we find that the fiber optic WAN provided by Phonoscope is ``lit'' and is therefore eligible for E-rate support. As a result, we grant Houston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas, on March 18, 2005, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-283A1.txt
  • the omission is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for providing complete and accurate information and meeting all of the program deadlines. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Esko Public Schools, Esko, Minnesota, on November 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Schwartz & Richard Singpiel, Esko Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, postmarked
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-284A1.txt
  • with program rules and procedures. Hence, staffing changes does not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that ONEC has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2004, by ONEC, Manderson, South Dakota, IS DENIED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-285A1.txt
  • approved or due to personnel changes do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to understand and comply with the program rules or procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on March 8, 2004, by School Administrative Unit 41, Hollis, New Hampshire; on April 12, 2004, by River Trails School District 26, Mt. Prospect, Illinois; on May 4, 2004, by Hyde Leadership Public Charter School, Washington, DC; and on June 30, 2004,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-326A1.txt
  • amounts that go beyond what they can substantiate, their funding requests will be reduced to the amount that is substantiated. Accordingly, we remand these Requests for Review and direct SLD to grant the commitment requests in accordance with this order, unless SLD identifies other grounds for denial. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Berkeley County School District, Martinsburg, West Virginia, on February 23, 2004; Braxton County School District, Sutton, West Virginia, on August 7, 2003; Brooke County School District, Wellsburg, West Virginia, on January 12, 2004; Cambria Heights School District, Patton, Pennsylvania, on November 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3290A1.txt
  • rural, insular, and high-cost areas. Therefore, we conclude that deviation from the general rule under these special circumstances will serve the public interest. Accordingly, we find that waiving section 54.307(c) of the Commission's rules will serve the public interest by preserving and advancing universal service. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of FCC Rule Section 54.307 filed by FiberNet, LLC, on April 11, 2005, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau FiberNet, LLC, Petition for Waiver of FCC Rule Section 54.307(c)(4), CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Apr. 11, 2005 (FiberNet
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-430A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Atlanta Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia, on May 7, 2003; Kings Local School District, Kings Mills, Ohio, on March 31, 2003; Ross-Hill Academy, Detroit, Michigan, on July 9, 2003; St. Agatha School, Brooklyn, New York, on June 10, 2003; St. Philip School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-431A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by El Dorado County Office of Education, Placerville, California, on March 12, 2003; GEMS Academy, Humble, Texas, on July 21, 2003; Lafayette School Corporation, Lafayette, Indiana, on January 20, 2002; and Sts. Leo-Seton Catholic School, Lafayette, Louisiana, on August 26, 2003, respectively,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-432A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by E-Rate Central, Seaford, New York, on November 18, 2003; Gerrish-Higgins School District, Roscommon, Michigan, on July 10, 2003; Haverhill Public Schools, Haverhill, Massachusetts, on August 7, 2003; Ringwood School District, Ringwood, New Jersey, on July 15, 2003; School District of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-462A1.txt
  • For review of decisions by SLD, requests to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, the Petitioner filed its request after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Tiospa Zina Tribal School, Agency Village, South Dakota, filed December 7, 2004, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Greg S. Paulson, Tiospa Zina Tribal School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-465A1.txt
  • Company (Administrator). For review of decisions by SLD, requests to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, the Applicants filed their requests after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss their requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review by the Board of Education - Unified School District 402, Augusta, Kansas, on July 16, 2003; Brookline Elementary School, Brookline, Vermont, on July 15, 2003; Townshend Elementary School, Townshend, Vermont, on July 21, 2003; and Woodbridge Board of Education, Woodbridge, Connecticut, August 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-466A1.txt
  • decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance date of the SLD decision. Here, Killdeer filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We affirm SLD's decision and therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Killdeer Public School District No. 16, Killdeer, North Dakota, on December 15, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gary Wilz, Killdeer Public School District No. 16, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-467A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Northwest Passage School has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Northwest Passage School, Webster, Wisconsin, on July 5, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steve Ammend, Northwest Passage School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-481A1.txt
  • Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Beaver Dam's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision in this matter, Beaver Dam may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Beaver Dam Community Hospital, Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, on January 21, 2005, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandra Tiedt, Beaver Dam Community Hospital, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-496A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Bristow School's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Bristow Schools may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 20, 2004, by Bristow Public Schools, Bristow, Oklahoma IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeanene Barnett, Bristow Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-497A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Aubrey Independent School District, Aubrey, Texas, on June 3, 2004; Barrow County Schools, Winder, Georgia, on August 16, 2004; Bicentennial Union High School District #76, Salome, Arizona, on May 10, 2004; Campbell County Public Library, Cold Spring, Kentucky, on November 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-498A1.txt
  • consider which party was responsible for the statutory or rule violation at issue, we find it appropriate to remand the above-captioned Requests for Review of commitment adjustment decisions to USAC for further consideration consistent with the Commission's decision in the Schools and Libraries Fourth Report and Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by ATEK Construction, Inc. - Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, on July 12, 2004; Riverside County Office of Education, Riverside, California, on October 1, 2004; SBC-Illinois and Ameritech Advanced Data Services, Inc. - Harvey Public School District, Harvey, Illinois, on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-54A1.txt
  • substantiate, their funding requests will be reduced to the amount that is substantiated. Accordingly, we remand this case and direct SLD to grant the commitment request for FRN 924840 in the amount of $232.90 monthly in accordance with this order, unless SLD identifies other grounds for denial. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Iroquois West School District 10, Gilman, Illinois IS GRANTED to the extent described herein and REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-630A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Camden Catholic High School, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on March 17, 2003; Carlisle Area School District, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on April 8, 2003; and Yeshivat Ateret Torah, Brooklyn, New York, on August 7, 2003, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-696A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by American Falls School District No. 1381, American Falls, Idaho, on June 30, 2003; Berlin-Milan Local Schools, Milan, Ohio, on May 27, 2003; and Humble Independent School District, Humble, Texas, on June 18, 2003, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-697A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Hereford Independent School District, Hereford, Texas, on May 5, 2003; John A. Coleman Catholic High School, Hurley, New York, on June 4, 2003; Pima Vocational High School, Tucson, Arizona, on April 16, 2003; and Rock Falls Elementary School District 13, Rock
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-698A1.txt
  • Services supports our determination in the Whiteville Order that the underlying contract expired in December 2000. Because Petitioners failed to submit an FCC Form 470 for the services rendered after December 2000, in contravention of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements, we must deny their Petitions for Reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina, on November 27, 2002, Henderson, Baxter, Taylor & Gatchel, P.A. on behalf of Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina, on November 29, 2002, and Valentine, Adams & Lamar, L.L.P. on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-90A1.txt
  • Employee misunderstandings about program rules do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to understand and comply with the program rules or procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we find that Community Consolidated has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on June 2, 2004, by Community Consolidated School District 168, Sauk Village, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Kunkel, Community Consolidated School District 168, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-91A1.txt
  • procedures. Hence, neither staffing changes nor misunderstanding of the rules relieves applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Harmony has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 22, 2004, by Harmony Science Academy, Houston, Texas IS DISMISSED and request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-93A1.txt
  • decision was rendered. Appeals seeking review of decisions by SLD issued before August 13, 2001 must have been filed with SLD within 30 days of the decision. White Hall's appeal was filed June 23, 2000, in contravention of this rule. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by White Hall School District No. 27, White Hall, Arkansas on July 10, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunication Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Danny Young, White Hall School District No. 27, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1106A1.txt
  • mechanism and to determine on a case-by-case basis whether waste, fraud, or abuse of program funds occurred and whether recovery is warranted. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the South Carolina Division of the Chief Information Officer Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator and/or in the Alternative, Petition for Waiver IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1265A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Richmond County School District ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1266A1.txt
  • had come through and no additional, unbudgeted priority expenditures had arisen. If USAC finds that Anson County would have been able to finance that entire amount, and if its application is otherwise consistent with program rules, then USAC should grant the two funding requests at issue here. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Anson County School District on March 28, 2006 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Maxter E. Allen, Anson County School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1287A1.txt
  • to USAC. We direct USAC to give Hickory City 15 days to submit the relevant data so that USAC can complete its selective review. If USAC finds that the five Hickory City applications at issue here were filed consistent with E-rate program rules, it should grant them. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hickory City School District on August 17, 2004 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1462A1.txt
  • its selective review of Jennings County. We expect Jennings County to provide USAC, in a timely manner, with the information that USAC may request. If USAC finds that the three Jennings County applications at issue here were filed consistent with E-rate program rules, it should grant them. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jennings County Schools on March 23, 2006 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1463A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henkels & McCoy, Inc., on October 3, 2005, IS GRANTED AND REMANDED to USAC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), and pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1509A1.txt
  • that the procurement process at issue did not violate our competitive bidding requirements. We therefore grant Wyoming's Requests for Review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Wyoming Department of Education on December 13, 2005, and December 15, 2005 are GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1574A1.txt
  • with the terms of this Order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the requested services. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that the Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.504(b) filed by Utica City School District, Utica, New York IS GRANTED and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1575A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority under 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that Hickory Public Schools District Request for Review IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1632A1.txt
  • find that in this case the late filing did not impair the administration of the USF. Furthermore, GVNW has taken steps to ensure that it will not file late in the future. As such, we grant the Partnerships' petition for waiver of section 54.307(c). . ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of Section 54.307 of the Commission's Rules filed by Northwest Dakota Cellular of North Dakota Limited Partnership; North Central RSA 2 of North Dakota Limited Partnership; North Dakota RSA No. 3 Limited Partnership; Badlands Cellular of North Dakota Limited Partnership; North Dakota 5 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1633A1.txt
  • with Commission rules, USAC should have deemed the certifications of Buggs Island and Pembroke filed on Monday, October 3, 2005, as timely filed. We direct USAC to implement the conclusions in this Order by disbursing first quarter 2005 funds to Buggs Island and Pembroke. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Petition for Waiver of Deadline in 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.313, 54.314 filed by Buggs Island Telephone Cooperative on October 18, 2005, and the Petition for Waiver of Section 54.314(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules filed by Pembroke Telephone Cooperative on October 31, 2005, ARE GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1642A1.txt
  • abuse of program funds occurred and whether 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), this Order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(b), is WAIVED with regard to Requests
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1643A1.txt
  • release of this Order and issue an award or denial based on a complete review and analysis. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Providence Public School District IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. 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 pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1653A1.txt
  • provide the information within 15 calendar days of receiving notice in writing from USAC that additional information is required. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administrative District 67 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1655A1.txt
  • we find that good cause exists to grant Gayville-Volin's appeal and remand to USAC for further processing consistent with our decision. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gayville-Volin School District 63-1, Gayville, South Dakota IS GRANTED and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1656A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Douglas-Omaha Technology Commission, Omaha, Nebraska, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1657A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority under 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that Zapata County Independent School District, Zapata, Texas, Request for Review IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1770A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Owensboro Public Schools, Owensboro, Kentucky, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1806A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Scott County School System, Huntsville, Tennessee, IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1871A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1907A1.txt
  • 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. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that the Requests for Review as listed in Appendices A, B, C, and D of this Order ARE GRANTED and ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2108A1.txt
  • of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Berrien County Intermediate School District Appeal IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2235A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Benavides Independent School District, Benavides, Texas IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 the authority delegated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2236A1.txt
  • error. We continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Minnesota River Valley Education District, Montevideo, Minnesota, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2269A1.txt
  • direct USAC to reinstate the funding commitment no later than 60 days from the release of this Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Paterson School District, Paterson, New Jersey IS GRANTED and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2306A1.txt
  • provide the information within 15 calendar days of receiving notice in writing from USAC that additional information is required. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Abington School District IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2355A1.txt
  • Thumb Cellular had notice of a deadline that was different than the one established by the Commission's rules, which provide specific guidance on calculating deadlines. We direct USAC to implement the conclusions in this Order by disbursing third quarter 2003 ICLS funds to Thumb Cellular. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Appeal of USAC's Denial of Funding filed by Thumb Cellular Limited Partnership on June 2, 2004 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Appeal of the Decision of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-244A1.txt
  • a waiver to Glendale and remand its application to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and/or Waiver filed by Glendale Unified School District, Glendale, California, IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2459A1.txt
  • interest and the goals of section 254(h) of the Communications Act are best served by requiring USAC to reconsider Quinter's application, including the revised diagram filed with Quinter's Second USAC Appeal, and to work with Quinter to determine if indeed its request should be considered eligible telecommunications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Quinter Public Schools Unified School District No. 293, Quinter, Kansas, on October 3, 2005, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2460A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Coahoma County School District, Clarksdale, Mississippi, IS GRANTED, and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2462A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, waiver of section 54.720(b) IS GRANTED to Friendship House. 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Friendship House, Scranton, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-246A1.txt
  • Education's (ACBE) Funding Year 2003 and 2004 applications for discounted services. On October 20, 2005, RelComm filed a Request to Withdraw its Requests for Review of ACBE's Funding Year 2003 and 2004 applications. We grant RelComm's Request to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss RelComm's Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to Withdraw filed RelComm, Inc., West Berlin, New Jersey, on October 20, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2500A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dallas Independent School District IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2584A1.txt
  • Accordingly, we find that waiving section 54.904(d) of the Commission's rules will serve the public interest by preserving and advancing universal service. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 214, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of the Deadline in 47 C.F.R. § 54.904(d) filed by North River Telephone Cooperative on November 17, 2005, IS GRANTED, as described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau North River Telephone Cooperative Petition for Waiver of the Deadline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-287A1.txt
  • at issue followed USAC and the Commission's competitive bidding rules and regulations, as well as applicable state laws, as required by program rules, we conclude that Petitioners were in compliance with section 54.504(a) of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we grant Petitioners' Requests for Review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Petitioners on August 23, 2004, August 17, 2004, and July 27, 2004, ARE GRANTED, and the applications are REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dana R. Shaffer Deputy Chief Wireline Competition Bureau The 12 school
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-484A1.txt
  • the opportunity to receive support under the schools and libraries support mechanism, provided that all other E-rate application requirements are satisfied. We therefore grant a waiver to the State of Wyoming and remand the applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyoming, on December 20, 2002 and February 12, 2003, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-152 and 254,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-485A1.txt
  • highest number of points in the bid evaluation, but it also represented the lowest cost of the proposals submitted. These factors support the conclusion that the procurement process at issue did not violate our competitive bidding requirements. We therefore grant Wyoming's Request for Review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wyoming Department of Education on April 18, 2005 is GRANTED and remanded to USAC for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Clementina Jimenez, Wyoming Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-486A1.txt
  • grant Pasadena's Requests for Review and remand its applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Pasadena Unified School District, Pasadena, California, ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-487A1.txt
  • public interest to penalize Greenfield for its employee's sudden departure to fulfill his military obligations. We therefore grant the Waiver Request and remand the underlying applications to the Administrator. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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, 54.722(a) and pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Greenfield Public School District, Shutesbury, Massachusetts, on October 12, 2005, IS GRANTED, and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to the Administrator for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-785A1.txt
  • reserve the right to conduct audits and investigations to determine compliance with the program rules and requirements. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1180A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507 filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1182A1.txt
  • 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 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 Tri-Rivers Education Computer Association's Request for Review IS GRANTED, as described herein. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1184A1.txt
  • Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company has approved Kress's request. Accordingly, we dismiss Kress's Request for Review as moot. 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 3, 2004, by Kress Independent School District, Kress, Texas, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Renée R. Crittendon Acting Deputy Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Leah Zeigler, Kress Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed Feb. 3, 2004 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1236A1.txt
  • of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Long Beach Unified School District on May 25, 2004; Smoky Hill Education Service Center on August 25, 2004; and Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico, on behalf of Advance Bilingual School, on February 10, 2005, are GRANTED and REMANDED to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1238A1.txt
  • therefore subject to the October 28, 2001 deadline imposed by the CIPA statute, we are thus without authority to waive that deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeals filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.txt
  • and the Instructions. We therefore conclude that Petitioners' Forms 499-A for 2001 should be rejected. V. ORDERING CLAUSEs ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j) and 254 and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petitions for Review filed by American Cyber Corp., Coleman Enterprises, Inc., Inmark, Inc., d/b/a Preferred Billing, Lotel, Inc., d/b/a Coordinated Billing, Protel Advantage, Inc. ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1270A1.txt
  • the foregoing reasons, we deny the Request for Review and remand the relevant applications to USAC to continue the commitment adjustment recovery actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Send Technologies, L.L.C., on January 19, 2004 and March 22, 2004 ARE DENIED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1- 4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1272A1.txt
  • receipt and must await reimbursement from USAC have an alternative method by which to pay the non-discounted portion. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Waiver filed by AT&T Corp. IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.txt
  • River during 2001 for the universal service obligations resulting from Big River's end-user telecommunications revenues. V. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j) and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Big River Telephone Company, LLC IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1332A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Calhoun School, New York, New York, on November 23, 2004; North American Family Institute, Danvers, Massachusetts, on August 24, 2004; North Sacramento School District, Sacramento, California, on December 7, 2005; Harrisonburg City School Board, on June 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1573A1.txt
  • the E-rate, rural health care, and low-income programs established by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's rules. 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request filed November 1, 2005, by the State of Louisiana, Governor's Office, the Request filed November 1, 2005, by the Texas Education Agency, and the Request filed April 10, 2006, by the Louisiana Public Service Commission ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2111A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2694A1.txt
  • award or denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release of this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hickory Public Schools, Hickory, North Carolina, on June 9, 2006 IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2695A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Long Beach Unified School District on May 27, 2004, is GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2922A1.txt
  • revenues earned from its telecommunications offerings and reasonable costs, including interest and administrative costs caused by Radiant's overdue contributions. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the appeal filed by Radiant Telecom, Inc., is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Radiant Telecom, Inc. is to file FCC Form 499-A for years 2002 to the present with the Universal Service Administrative Company in accordance with the terms of this Order, and the Universal Service Administrative
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.txt
  • under Section 253 of the Communications Act 06/30/09 3060-0862 Handling Confidential Information 06/30/08 3060-0863 Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) 04/30/09 3060-0865 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Universal Licensing System Recordkeeping and Third-Party Disclosure Requirements 07/31/10 3060-0874 FCC 475B, FCC 2000 Series 09/30/10 3060-0876 Sec. 54.703 and Secs. 54.719, 54.720, 54.721, 54.722, 54.723, 54.724 and 54.725 09/30/09 3060-0881 Sec. 95.861 09/30/08 3060-0882 Sec. 95.833 01/31/09 3060-0888 Secs. 76.7, 76.9, 76.61, 76.914, 76.1003, 76.1302, and 76.1513 05/31/08 3060-0894 Secs. 54.313 and 54.316 and Certification Letter Accounting for Receipt of Federal Support and Rate Comparability Review and Certification 09/30/10 3060-0895 FCC 502 05/31/10 3060-0896 Broadcast Auction Form Exhibits 12/31/08 3060-0900 Compatibility of Wireless Services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4471A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4549A1.txt
  • related to the Oblio Petition. Oblio further requests that the Oblio Petition be withdrawn with prejudice. We therefore grant Oblio's request. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Oblio Petition IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jeremy D. Marcus Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of Oblio Telecom, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling that AT&T's Refusal to Honor Oblio Telecom, Inc.'s Proof of Exemption From Pass-Through USF Charges and Request for Refund
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-459A1.txt
  • We find that Hopi's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER, effective as of June 1, 2006, for portions of its licensed service area on the Hopi and Navajo Nation Reservations in Arizona, to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the request for refund of late filing fees for filers listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5021A1.txt
  • Form 471. On February 12, 2007, Troup County filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal after learning that it received funding for the same products and services in Funding Year 2005. We grant Troup County's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and, accordingly, dismiss Troup County's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Troup County School System, LaGrange, Georgia, on February 12, 2007, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1418A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Arkansas requests for review and waiver filed on behalf of itself and the applicants as listed in Appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.txt
  • of the 45-day revision window is warranted in this instance. We therefore reverse USAC's decision to reject Aventure's January 15, 2008, FCC Form 499-Q filing, and direct USAC to treat it as timely for purposes of adjusting Aventure's USF contribution obligations on a going-forward basis. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aventure Communications Technology, LLC on March 6, 2008, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion for Waiver of Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1890A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Savannah request for review IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this order. 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. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1898A1.txt
  • and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order and the Civil Settlement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Universal Service Administrative Company SHALL COMPLETE its review of the remanded application and ISSUE an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.txt
  • therefore, that AMTS providers are not exempt from USF contribution obligations. For the foregoing reasons, we deny the request for review. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722, that the request for review filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC on behalf of Waterway Communication System, LLC and Mobex Network Services, LLC IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2133A1.txt
  • and arguments presented generally is required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Gary Seigel, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Centennial Communications Corp., Request Pursuant to Section 54.722(a) of the Commission's Rules for Review of Universal Service Administrative Company Decision on High Cost Support Mechanism Beneficiary Appeal, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Sept. 8, 2008) (Centennial Petition); 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). See Centennial Petition at 1. Id. See Centennial Petition at 17; 47 C.F.R. § 54.307. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for refund of late filing fees for filers listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2362A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Delano Joint Union High School District, Delano, California on December 28, 2006 and the Request for Review filed by Cityroots, Inc., Bakersfield, California on March 20, 2007 ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2363A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Grand Rapids Public Schools on June 8, 2007, IS GRANTED. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2365A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Harvey Public Library District IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2366A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Hillsboro Independent School District IS GRANTED, as described herein. 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 pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2367A1.txt
  • 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. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network on December 13, 2004, IS GRANTED and Aguadilla's application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2368A1.txt
  • will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Liberal Unified School District 480, Liberal, Kansas, on May 5, 2004, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2370A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Haven Free Public Library, New Haven Connecticut, on January 31, 2005 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2371A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Radford City Schools IS GRANTED, as described herein. 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2372A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tekoa Academy of Accelerated Studies, Port Arthur, Texas, on March 5, 2004, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2373A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that Trenton City School District's Request for Review IS GRANTED and its application REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2374A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that United Talmudical Academy's Request for Review IS GRANTED and its application REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2375A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that West Branch-Rose City Area School's Request for Review IS GRANTED and its application REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2376A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507(c) filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2377A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Adams County Public Library, West Union, Ohio; Albemarle County Public Schools, Charlottesville, Virginia; Austin School District 492, Austin, Minnesota; Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Syracuse, New York; Roddenberry Memorial Library, Cairo, Georgia; Stokes County School District, Danbury, North Carolina; and The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2378A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2379A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and or Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507 filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2380A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Approach Learning and Assessment Centers on August 13, 2007, Brevard County School District on February 15, 2007, Charleston County School District on October 29, 2007, Hoboken School District on September 25, 2006, Division of Juvenile Justice California Education Authority on October 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2381A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 underlying applications associated with the appeals listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. 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.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and Requests for Waiver filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2383A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2384A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2385A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2386A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Chester Upland School District, Lake Grove - Durham School, Lower Yukon School District, and Santa Ana Unified School District ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consisted with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Colegio Nuestra Senora del Carmen on June 8, 2005, Long Branch Free Public Library on April 23, 2007, The Mill School on April 26, 2005, Pinon Unified School District on November 18, 2005, Thornton Township High School District 205 on January 13, 2006,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2388A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, on August 25, 2006, and Consorcio de Escuelas y Bibliotecas de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, on August 25, 2006, and October 2, 2006, respectively, ARE GRANTED and the underlying
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2389A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Achieve Telecom Network of MA, LLC and E-Rate Elite Services, Inc. ARE GRANTED to the extent described herein, and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2695A1.txt
  • important filing deadlines are not met, as a means to ensure that FCC Forms 499-Q are timely filed. Ordering Clauses 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for waiver of the FCC Form 499-Q revision deadline for filers listed in the Appendix ARE DISMISSED as moot. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-319A1.txt
  • waiver of section 54.504 of our rules and remand Franklin-McKinley's appeal to USAC for further processing consistent with our decision. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Franklin-McKinley School District IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-449A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by SEND Technologies, L.L.C., on November 20, 2006 and April 9, 2007 ARE GRANTED as they relate to Morehouse Parish School District, Richland Parish School District, Webster Parish School District, Franklin Academy, Caldwell Parish School District, Lincoln Parish School District, Madison Parish School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-942A1.txt
  • 499-Q. USAC has advised the Commission, however, that since 360networks' appeal was filed, USAC has ``revised 360networks' second quarter 2004 billings and has reversed all applicable late payment fees.'' Based on this information, we find that 360networks' concerns have been addressed and the appeal is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by 360networks (USA) Inc. on May 3, 2005, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1251A1.txt
  • find, based on the revised filing, that Cook would have qualified for the de minimis exception to contribution obligations, USAC is directed to cancel all associated debt attributed to Cook due to its original 1997 FCC Form 457 filing, including late fees, penalties, and interest. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Cook Telecom, Inc. on February 6, 2006, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.txt
  • treatment of disbursements during the pending review process. Need: In implementing statutory requirements for the Universal Service support mechanism, these rules provide the framework and requirements for the review of decisions issued by the Administrator. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 254. Section Number and Title: 54.719 Parties permitted to seek review of Administrator decisions. 54.720 Filing deadlines. 54.721 General filing requirements. 54.722 Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission. 54.723 Standard of review. 54.724 Time periods for Commission approval of Administrator decisions. 54.725 Universal service disbursements during pendency of a request for review and Administrator decision. PART 61-TARIFFS SUBPART E-GENERAL RULES FOR DOMINANT CARRIERS Brief Description: The Part 61 rules are designed to implement the provisions of sections 201, 202,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1308A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of: Federal-State Joint Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service Centennial Michigan RSA 6 Cellular Group Centennial Michigan RSA 7 Cellular Group Request for Review of Universal Service Administrative Company Decision Pursuant to Section 54.722(a) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-45 order Adopted: June 10, 2009 Released: June 10, 2009 By the Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: Introduction In this order, we deny the request of Centennial Michigan RSA 6 Cellular Corp. and Centennial Michigan RSA 7 Cellular Corp. (Centennial) to reverse
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1567A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507(c) filed by Minford Local Schools IS GRANTED and its application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1797A1.txt
  • the Commission's competitive bidding rules and requirements. Accordingly, we affirm USAC's decision to deny payment of Petitioners' outstanding invoices and we deny Petitioners' request for review. ORDERING CLAUSES IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Lazo Technologies, Inc., Hill Professional Services, and Advanced Technology Solutions South IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Julie A. Veach
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1821A1.txt
  • dispute'' policy; Global Crossing should therefore have paid the disputed invoices while its appeal was pending with the Commission. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the request for review and appeal of invoices filed by Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc. are hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Julie A. Veach Acting Chief
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1822A1.txt
  • Howe ISD's request for review and direct USAC to continue any commitment adjustment recovery actions regarding this matter. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the request for review filed by Howe Independent School District 67, Howe, Oklahoma IS DENIED and REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1946A1.txt
  • other schools using Integrity as their service provider without first taking steps to determine whether similar contractual provisions exist between those schools and Integrity. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Expedited Review filed by Integrity Communications, Ltd., on December 26, 2007, IS DENIED as discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2151A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Request Pursuant to Section 54.722(a) of the Commission's Rules for Review of Universal Service Administrative Company Decision on High Cost Support Mechanism Beneficiary Appeal ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-45 ORDER Adopted: October 2, 2009 Released: October 2, 2009 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: introduction In this order, we deny the request of Centennial Communications Corp. (Centennial) for reversal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2240A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that Hazelwood's Request for Review IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2241A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Keyport School District on October 26, 2006, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2242A1.txt
  • remain eligible to apply for support from the schools and libraries mechanism in future funding years. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for waivers filed by Amy Biehl Charter High School, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Weld Library District, Greely, Colorado, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2243A1.txt
  • 2003, the petitioners were required to follow the specified procedures to convert their dark fiber to lit fiber services. Therefore, we deny these appeals. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Clark County School District, Letcher County School District and Tahoma School District No. 409 ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2244A1.txt
  • education to include Head Start programs. Therefore, we affirm USAC's decision to deny E-rate program funding to Rural Alaska. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Eagle Hill School, Italian Home for Children, and Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. ARE DENIED. (b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau In this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2245A1.txt
  • the Request for Waiver or Review and we uphold USAC's decision to recover all funds disbursed to Exigent in E-rate funding year 2001. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver or review filed by Exigent Technologies on August 31, 2004, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2246A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hemet Unified School District, Hemet, California, on July 23, 2008 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2247A1.txt
  • affirm USAC's decisions that the petitioners' service providers were not telecommunications carriers, as required by program rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for review listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2248A1.txt
  • review. Therefore, we affirm USAC's decision to seek recovery of the E-rate funds disbursed to Iosco for the relevant funding requests for funding year 1999. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Iosco Regional Educational Service Agency on March 19, 2004, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2251A1.txt
  • that all universal service contribution collection actions be held in abeyance pending final action on Heller's request for review by the Commission. On September 4, 2009, Heller filed a request for withdrawal of its pleadings. We grant Heller's withdrawal request and, accordingly, dismiss the above-captioned pleadings. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for withdrawal submitted by Heller Information Services, Inc., filed September 4, 2009, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-825A1.txt
  • that special circumstances warrant deviation from the general rule. Consistent with the Commission's Aberdeen School District Order, we therefore deny these petitioners' appeals. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that waivers of sections 54.504(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b) and (c), ARE GRANTED to the petitioners listed in Appendices A and B and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1018A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by The Bronx Charter School for Better Learning, Bronx, New York, on December 6, 2006 and April 13, 2007, ARE GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1019A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES IT IS THEREFORE 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. §§ 151-54 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Illinois State Board of Education, Chicago, Illinois, IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1022A1.txt
  • and issue an award or denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release of this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeal filed by Bradford Regional Medical Center IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1050A1.txt
  • of the two highest contribution factors from that year. See id. See ComScape Letter at 1; Millennium Letter at 1. See, e.g., Millennium Letter at 3. See ComScape Letter at 1; Millennium Letter at 2. See Second Wireless Safe Harbor Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24972, para. 36. ComScape Letter at 1; Millennium Letter at 4. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). The Commission may waive any provision of its rules on its own motion and for good cause shown. 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. A rule may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular). In addition, the Commission may take
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1122A1.txt
  • Form 499-A filings. Accordingly, we uphold USAC's decision to correct and reverse the erroneous credits applied to TMI's account. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review of the decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed by Telecom Management Inc., d/b/a Pioneer Telephone IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1265A1.txt
  • no waste, fraud or abuse of E-rate funds exist. In addition, we grant DRC's request to withdraw its petition for reconsideration. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Amended Petition for Order Directing Universal Service Administrative Company to Process Puerto Rico Department of Education's Funding Request for Services Provided by Data Research Corporation Under the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism for Years 2001 and 2002 filed by Data Research Corporation IS GRANTED. IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1350A1.txt
  • Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Theodore Burmeister, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Smith Bagley, Inc. Request for Review of a Decision of the Universal Service Administrator and Request for a Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket Nos. 08-71 and 05-337 (filed July 6, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.721, 54.722. See also High-Cost Universal Service Support, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8834 (2008) (Interim Cap Order), aff'd, Rural Cellular Ass'n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009); High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1447A1.txt
  • original FCC Form 471 filings. In such cases, applicants must file new FCC Form 471 applications for support. Accordingly, we deny their appeals. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Beth Rivka School, Buffalo City School District, Chicago Public Schools, Dale County School District, and Edison School Consortium ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief In this order, we use the term ``appeals'' to refer generally to requests for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-144A1.txt
  • 2006, the Commission's Office of the Managing Director sent a letter to Equant accepting its offer of alternative relief and stating that Equant would receive a refund of $20,063.87 for overpayment of regulatory fees for fiscal year 2000. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the above-captioned request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 0.204(b), and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 0.204(b), and 54.722(a), that the request for review or alternative relief submitted by Equant, Inc., filed June 7, 2006, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102, that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1470A1.txt
  • evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. Therefore, to the extent that Dodge County violated section 54.504(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, we find that good cause exists to waive this rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that a waiver of section 54.504(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b), IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1513A1.txt
  • filed upon their receipt at the location designated by the Commission and that filings, including revisions, can be made electronically through USAC's website. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by AT&T Inc. on June 26, 2006 IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.txt
  • be postmarked to the Commission or filed electronically in WC Docket No. 06-122 within 60 days of the issuance of the USAC decision. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review and waiver filed by Airband Communications, Inc. on July 23, 2008 and the petition filed by Airband Communications, Inc. on July 23, 2008 ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1601A1.txt
  • find that Standing Rock's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER for portions of its licensed service area on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota and South Dakota, to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. SHALL SUBMIT additional information pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1712A1.txt
  • must comply with our rules and procedures and continue to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 appeal filed by Portland Area Indian Health Service, Portland, Oregon, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration. 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,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-187A1.txt
  • request for reversal of late fees, penalties and interest assessed based on its non-payment of its billed contribution assessment. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review of the decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed by Level 3 Communications, LLC, ICG Telecom Group, Inc., Looking Glass Networks, Inc., Looking Glass Networks of Virginia, Inc., Progress Telecom, LLC, and Wiltel Communications, LLC IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1968A1.txt
  • 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Virgin Islands Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone's Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Sep. 28, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c), 54.721, and 54.722. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). PUBLIC NOTICE 10/1/2010 PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1997A1.txt
  • based on the new schools' discounts rates, as long as the amount of funding committed is the same or lower than in the original request. 5. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the petitions of Abbeville County School District, Union County School District, and Williamsburg County School District ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order to the extent provided herein. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2005A1.txt
  • that form the basis for its conclusions with respect to the reclassification of any revenues associated with NetworkIP's non-contributing customers. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Enhanced Network Telecom, LLP is hereby GRANTED in part and otherwise REMANDED to USAC for further action and consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 0.204(b), and 54.722(a) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2100A1.txt
  • 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Virgin Islands Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone's Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Oct. 21, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c), 54.721, and 54.722. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2215A1.txt
  • deadline for various funding years because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2216A1.txt
  • in the E-rate program to comply with the Commission's rules. Applicants continue to be responsible for requesting service delivery deadline extensions on time and in the proper format. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeals filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2269A1.txt
  • permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - East Ascension Telephone Company LLC and EATELCORP, INC. Appeal of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719(c), 54.721, and 54.722 of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Nov. 16, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2299A1.txt
  • more than one year. We therefore grant the request for review and remand the underlying application to USAC for processing consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Achieve Telecom Network of MA, LLC IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2300A1.txt
  • 27, 2002. Davidson's petition for reconsideration was filed with the Commission July 6, 2006. We therefore dismiss the petition for reconsideration because it is untimely. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the petition for reconsideration filed by Davidson County Schools, Lexington, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sue Whitman, Davidson County Schools, to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2301A1.txt
  • to comply with the Commission's rules. We continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Explore Knowledge Academy Charter School, Las Vegas, Nevada; Heart and Health Academys, St. Claire Shores, Michigan; and Saint John School, Orange, New Jersey, ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2304A1.txt
  • opportunity to amend its funding requests to eliminate all ineligible services or provide additional documentation to USAC supporting the eligibility of the services in their funding requests. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2305A1.txt
  • action here does not eliminate or mitigate any of our competitive bidding requirements or the obligations of participants in the E-rate program to comply with the Commission's rules. II. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the appeal filed by Green Bay Area Public School District on May 24, 2010 IS GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2352A1.txt
  • a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decision, or because of circumstances beyond the applicants' control. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2354A1.txt
  • issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 120 calendar days from the release date of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2370A1.txt
  • also find good cause to waive section 54.720 of the Commission's rules, which establishes deadlines for affected parties to seek review of decisions issued by USAC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and Request for Waiver ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2424A1.txt
  • waive the E-rate technology plan requirements for these petitioners and remand the applications listed in the appendix to USAC for further action consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. IT IS FURTHER
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2425A1.txt
  • a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decisions, or because of circumstances beyond the applicants' control. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2433A1.txt
  • find that Virgin Mobile's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER eligible only for Lifeline support for portions of its licensed service areas in Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, and New Hampshire, to the extent described in this order and subject to the conditions set forth herein. IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-486A1.txt
  • (USAC) based on USAC's determination that the petitioners untimely submitted their respective 2006 FCC Form 499-A filings. Because USAC erred in assessing the late fees and has since provided a credit to both LTS and South Miami, we dismiss their requests as moot. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.204(b),, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for review by LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC and South Miami Wash Bowl, Inc. ARE DISMISSED as moot. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-52A1.txt
  • in which USAC determined that NextGen should report subscriber line charges as interstate revenue subject to federal universal service fund contributions. On December 8, 2009, NextGen filed a letter requesting withdrawal of its request for review. We grant NextGen's withdrawal request and dismiss the above-captioned pleading. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for withdrawal submitted by NextGen Telephone, filed December 8, 2009, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-56A1.txt
  • that Thumb Cellular's FCC Form 507 was not timely filed. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) granted Thumb Cellular's appeal on November 22, 2006. Because the motion seeks a ruling on an appeal that has been granted by the Bureau, we dismiss Thumb Cellular's motion as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the motion for a ruling on appeal filed by Thumb Cellular, LLC on September 15, 2006, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Motion for a Ruling on Appeal of USAC's Denial of USF Funding by Thumb
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-648A1.txt
  • upon USAC's receipt of the form and not the postmark date. Finally, we stress the need for USAC to impose penalties when these important filing deadlines are not met, as a means to ensure that FCC Forms 499-Q are timely filed. Ordering Clauses 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for waiver of the FCC Form 499-Q revision deadline for filers listed in the Appendix ARE DISMISSED as moot. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-700A1.txt
  • conclude that USAC properly billed Alliance during 2000 for the universal service obligations resulting from Alliance's end-user revenues. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Alliance Group Services, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 1.102(b(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-724A1.txt
  • properly denied Tuba City's funding request. We therefore uphold USAC's decision and deny Tuba City's request for review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), the appeal filed by Tuba City Regional Health Care Corporation, Tuba City, Arizona, on January 23, 2006, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.txt
  • (South Bell Letter); Letter from Kathleen J. Gerke, 10D Telecom, Inc., to Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 06-122 (filed Nov. 24, 2008) (10D Letter) (collectively, the petitioners). A full list of petitioners is contained in the Appendix. The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to consider requests for review of decisions by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8797, para. 787 (1997) (Universal Service First Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted). The Commission also requires certain other providers of interstate telecommunications to contribute to the universal service fund. See, e.g., Universal Service Contribution Methodology,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-752A1.txt
  • 60 days of this order, so that USAC can assure that all contributions to universal service are promptly paid. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by U.S. TelePacific Corp. is hereby GRANTED IN PART to the extent discussed herein and the Universal Service Administrative Company SHALL ACCEPT U.S. TelePacific Corp.'s re-filed 2008 FCC Form 499-A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-768A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 10-768 Released: May 5, 2010 COMMENT SOUGHT ON THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY PR WIRELESS, INC. OF AN AUDIT DECISION BY THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY WC Docket No. 05-337 Comment Date: June 4, 2010 Reply Comment Date: June 18, 2010 On April 5, 2010, PR Wireless, Inc. (PR Wireless), pursuant to sections 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, filed a request for review of an audit finding by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). Specifically, PR Wireless requests that the Commission review USAC's audit finding regarding the manner in which PR Wireless reports prepaid wireless subscribers in the universal service high-cost line counts it files with USAC. PR Wireless also requests reversal of USAC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-779A1.txt
  • to the Commission. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, parties may seek review of USAC decisions with either USAC or the Commission, but there is no requirement that parties first go to USAC before requesting review from the Commission. As such, we deny as moot inContact's request for waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, 54.720, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.720, and 54.722(a), that the request for review of the decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed by inContact, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, 1.3, 54.720, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.720, and 54.722(a), that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-885A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and/or Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507 filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-886A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver filed by Harvest Preparatory School on July 11, 2007, IS GRANTED and the funding requests (FRNs 1348538, 1349281, 1349304, 1349341, and 1349381) ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-887A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Expanets of North America, Englewood, Colorado, on December 24, 2002, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-888A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Idaho Falls School District 91, Idaho Falls, Idaho on July 12, 2002, IS GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-929A1.txt
  • cases. As a result, we deny the petitioners' appeals as listed in Appendices A, B, and C. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the appeals filed by petitioners as listed in Appendices A, B, and C ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-999A1.txt
  • financial, management, and similar information, USAC must also comply with the DCIA, which requires the use of EFT. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in Appendices A-C ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1018A1.txt
  • (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 384.95 693.649 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 407 693.899 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to authority in) Tj 1 0 0 1 62.6 680.95 Tm 100 Tz (sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules,) Tj 1 0 0 1 390.95 681.2 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (47) Tj 1 0 0 1 405.1 681.149 Tm 104 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 63.35 668.2 Tm 99 Tz (1.106, and 54.722\(a\), that the petitions for reconsideration filed by Lincoln Parish, UTA, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.txt
  • with this order. In remanding these funding requests to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested therein. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), section 54.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.503 IS WAIVED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.txt
  • Tm 99 Tz (ACCORDiNGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 397 Tm 100 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 384.549 Tm (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 371.799 Tm 99 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by the Free Public Library of Philadelphia IS) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 359.349 Tm 98 Tz (GRANTED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108 335.799 Tm 92 Tz (24.) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1088A1.txt
  • Tj 1 0 0 1 431.25 340.349 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 453.6 340.349 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 327.649 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 300 327.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 344.6 327.649 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 314.699 Tm 100 Tz (0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 145.9 314.949 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 193.65 314.949 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-114A1.txt
  • presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Puerto Rico Telephone Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719, 54.721, and 54.722 of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Jan. 11, 2011); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1208A1.txt
  • 1 136.3 630.799 Tm 99 Tz (ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 618.5 Tm 100 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 605.799 Tm 101 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 593.1 Tm 99 Tz (that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 580.399 Tm (GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1223A1.txt
  • deadline for funding years 2010-2011 because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1239A1.txt
  • they submitted their appeals to the Commission within a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1240A1.txt
  • 0 0 1 432.7 544.85 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (and) Tj 1 0 0 1 451.65 544.85 Tm 104 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 473.75 544.6 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 532.849 Tm 110 Tz (the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.9 518.2 Tm 76 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.35 519.899 Tm 108 Tz (0.91, 0.29 1 and 54.722\(a\), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver by the petitioners) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 507.649 Tm 109 Tz (as listed in Appendices A, B,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1241A1.txt
  • they submitted their appeals to the Commission within a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decisions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Burlington Township School District, Holy Name of Jesus, Lakewood Cheder School, The Center for Life Enrichment, and The Potomac School ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1246A1.txt
  • to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 78.45 635.1 Tm 100 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 78.45 622.85 Tm (0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 152.599 622.85 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 197.75 622.6 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 365 620.2 Tm 86 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (§') Tj 1 0 0 1 378.2 622.149 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\), that the) Tj 1 0 0 1 78.2 609.899 Tm
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1332A1.txt
  • or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1366A1.txt
  • conclude that Totah has provided no evidence of special circumstances to demonstrate good cause to grant a waiver of the Commission's rules and we deny its petition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722, the petition for waiver of section 36.621(a)(4) of the Commission's rules filed by Totah Communications, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Amy E. Bender Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 450.45 635.6 Tm 94 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.55 635.35 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.65 623.35 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 320.15 623.1 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 365.5 622.85 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.9 608.45 Tm 74 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.6 610.35 Tm 99 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by the Baltimore City School District on) Tj 1 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 450 668.95 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.55 668.7 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 74.4 656.45 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules,) Tj 1 0 0 1 486 656.2 Tm 93 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (47) Tj 1 0 0 1 500.15 655.95 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 74.85 641.799 Tm 65 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 88.05 644 Tm 98 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.txt
  • 0 0 1 92.4 560.399 Tm 105 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 111.8 560.2 Tm 110 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.65 547.5 Tm 109 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 74.15 532.799 Tm 76 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.6 535 Tm 108 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 162 535 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 210 534.799 Tm 109 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (that the request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1371A1.txt
  • 0 1 144.7 500 Tm 109 Tz (ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 487.25 Tm 110 Tz (1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91,) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 474.75 Tm 111 Tz (0.291, 1.3 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722, the request) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 462.299 Tm 109 Tz (for review and waiver filed by IP Telcom, Inc. IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 109.2 443.349 Tm 96 Tz (10.) Tj 1 0 0 1 144.7 443.349 Tm 108 Tz (IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1476A1.txt
  • Letter to Maricopa County that approved the funding at issue in its appeal. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Maricopa County's request for review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed on April 9, 2009, by Maricopa County Regional School District, Phoenix, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Eric Freed, Maricopa County Regional School District, to the Office
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1477A1.txt
  • 314.949 Tm 109 Tz (ACCORDiNGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 302.199 Tm 110 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 289.75 Tm 111 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 483.1 289.25 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 277.25 Tm 109 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (the Requests for Review filed by Cornwall-Lebanon School District, Lebanon, Pennsylvania IS) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 264.299 Tm (GRANTED and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1507A1.txt
  • Commission rule. Therefore, we find good cause to grant the appeal and remand the underlying application to USAC for further action consistent with this order. 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the State of Arkansas Department of Information Systems, Little Rock, Arkansas, IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1553A1.txt
  • Tj 1 0 0 1 71 646.149 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 90.45 646.35 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority in) Tj 1 0 0 1 71 633.399 Tm 101 Tz (sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 620.95 Tm 99 Tz (1.106, and 54.722\(a\), that the petitions for reconsideration filed by Rockwood School District, Eureka,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 608.2 Tm (Missouri, and Yakutat School District, Yakutat, Alaska are DISMISSED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 251 571.75 Tm 100
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 450 497.8 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.05 497.8 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.95 485.349 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 470.649 Tm 73 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 86.6 472.599 Tm 99 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by Tulsa Technology Center on July 26,) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.7 460.149 Tm (2008, IS GRANTED.) Tj 1 0 0 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1588A1.txt
  • deadline for funding year 2011 because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A, B, and C ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.txt
  • CDW Computer Centers, Inc., Dell Marketing, LP, Nextel Communications of Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Starpower Communications, LLC, and Infosys Services, Inc. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by SEED Charter School of Washington, D.C. on April 1, 2003, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1682A1.txt
  • 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 621.899 Tm 101 Tz (4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 609.149 Tm (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 596.45 Tm 100 Tz (54.722\(a\), waiver of section 54.720 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.720, IS GRANTED to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 584 Tm 99 Tz (Franklin County School District, Louisburg, North Carolina.) Tj 1 0 0 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1698A1.txt
  • authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.95 551.35 Tm 111 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.95 538.35 Tm 110 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 163.65 538.6 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 209 538.6 Tm 112 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 479.25 538.6 Tm 108 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 525.899 Tm 109 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (that the request for review filed by the West
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1699A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 466.55 694.149 Tm 93 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 488.15 694.149 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 681.399 Tm 99 Tz (pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 668.7 Tm 100 Tz (C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by Coordinated Construction,) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.2 656 Tm 99 Tz (Inc., Los Angeles, California on June 14, 2004 IS GRANTED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108.7 631.95 Tm 84
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1791A1.txt
  • also direct USAC to waive any associated invoice filing deadlines and any other procedural deadlines that were missed while these issues were on appeal with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Covert Public School District, Covert, Michigan, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1835A1.txt
  • 100 Tz (Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 549.149 Tm (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 536.45 Tm 101 Tz (authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 523.95 Tm 99 Tz (0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 119.25 523.95 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 167.5 523.95 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (that the requests for review filed by Lower Merion School District, Bethel School)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1840A1.txt
  • Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.35 662.2 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority in) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.15 649.95 Tm (sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 230.15 649.75 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 275.75 649.7 Tm 102 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.6 637 Tm 99 Tz (1.106, and 54.722\(a\), that the petition for reconsideration filed by Coatesvifle Area School District,) Tj 1 0 0 1 67.9 624.549 Tm (Coatesville, Pennsylvania IS DISMISSED.) Tj
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1841A1.txt
  • 679.75 Tm 97 Tz (1-4 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 108 679.75 Tm /OPBaseFont3 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 127.4 679.25 Tm 101 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 666.75 Tm (delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 654.299 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont3 11 Tf (54.722,) Tj 1 0 0 1 107.5 654.049 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (the request for review filed by MeetingOne, Inc. IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108.7 635.549 Tm 87 Tz (18.) Tj 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1854A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 62.6 432.75 Tm 101 Tz (254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and the authority) Tj 1 0 0 1 62.6 420.299 Tm 100 Tz (delegated pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 346.3 419.799 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 391.4 419.549 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47) Tj 1 0 0 1 62.6 407.549 Tm 98 Tz (C.F.R. § § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 202.05 407.349 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 249.6 407.099 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1974A1.txt
  • Tz (and) Tj 1 0 0 1 90.95 672.049 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 110.4 671.549 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 659.1 Tm 102 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 c.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 646.6 Tm 100 Tz (that waivers of section) Tj 1 0 0 1 174.7 646.35 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.503\(c\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 220.05 646.35 Tm 101 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 c.F.R. §)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.txt
  • request to Katy or its service provider, Phonoscope, USAC shall institute or continue recovery actions against them. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Katy Independent School District on July 23, 2009, IS DENIED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1991A1.txt
  • provided herein beginning with FCC Forms 470 or requests for proposals that are posted for Funding Year 2013. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by the Queen of Peace High School on July 19, 2010, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2040A1.txt
  • USAC's adverse decision, or the late-filed appeal would never have been necessary absent an error on the part of USAC. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-291A1.txt
  • 86 percent, Barberton cannot receive funding for internal connections as part of its funding year 2006 application. Accordingly, Barberton's request for review is denied. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Barberton City School District, Barberton, Ohio, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-301A1.txt
  • and issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the Bridgeport School District, the Chester Upland School District, and the Hartford Public Schools, ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-303A1.txt
  • associated invoice filing deadlines in connection with this service deadline extension and any other procedural deadlines that were missed while these issues were on appeal with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeals filed by Blitz Communications, Inc., Chicago, Illinois; Brevard County School District, Viera, Florida; Highland Park School District, Highland Park, Michigan; Jackson Public School District, Jackson, Mississippi; and Many Farms High School, Many Farms, Arizona, ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-486A1.txt
  • within 60 days of that date, or by July 2010. Dorial did not file the instant request for review until December 2010, well after the 60-day deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722, the request for review filed by Dorial Telecom, LLC on December 15, 2010 IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-490A1.txt
  • 470-posting process with additional efforts to seek bids, it is not free to ignore the E-rate competitive bidding rules. Therefore, we deny Challis's appeal. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Challis Joint School District #181, Challis, Idaho, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-533A1.txt
  • was filed late, the district filed the appeal as soon they received actual notice of the denial. Lincoln County's appeal was only two days late. 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and/or Request for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-566A1.txt
  • to show good cause to waive the deadline associated with the FCC Form 499-A, and accordingly we deny its requested waiver, consistent with precedent. 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, 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request filed by Manitowoc on October 1, 2010 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-578A1.txt
  • to comply with the Commission's rules. We continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Little Flower School, Cincinnati, Ohio, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-599A1.txt
  • has presented any special circumstances justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny Twiggs County's and ACS's requests for review and affirm USAC's decision. 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Twiggs County School District on September 13, 2004, and by American Control Systems, Inc. on November 11, 2004, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Carol Brown, Twiggs County Board
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-59A1.txt
  • and issue a decision based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Warren Village School on March 18, 2004, IS GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-605A1.txt
  • funding years 2009 and 2010 because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-606A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules, which requires that applications must be complete when filed, to enable these petitioners to correct any SPIN errors on their FCC Forms 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Alpine Union School District, Ashland School District 5, The Lake Grove School, IVCI on behalf of The Lake Grove School, Mt. Lebanon School District, and Three Rivers Community Schools ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-607A1.txt
  • from the release date of this order. We also direct USAC to discontinue its efforts to recover funds from Southwest Plains for the telecommunications services discussed here. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the Clare-Gladwin Regional Education Service Center and the Southwest Plains Regional Service Center, ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-656A1.txt
  • sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that this order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the petition for waiver of sections 54.307(d), 54.313, and 54.314 of the Commission's rules filed by Allied Wireless Communications Corporation IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-66A1.txt
  • Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Fulton Telephone Company Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Dec. 2, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). Although Fulton Telephone Company seeks review pursuant to section 54.716 of the Commission's rules - a section that does not exist - we will construe the filing as a request for review pursuant to section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules. See Electronic Filing of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-672A1.txt
  • C, and issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that waivers of sections 54.504(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b) and (c), ARE GRANTED to the petitioners listed in Appendices A and B and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-67A1.txt
  • FCC - Consolidated Communications of Fort Bend Company, Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company and Consolidated Communications of Texas Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 05-337 (filed Dec. 2, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-68A1.txt
  • presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Puerto Rico Telephone Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719, 54.721, and 54.722 of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Dec. 6, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-715A1.txt
  • review and waiver; and did not indicate it had served USAC with a copy of the request. We, therefore, dismiss without prejudice Alternative Phone's request as procedurally defective. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722, the request filed by Alternative Phone, Inc. on March 17, 2011, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.txt
  • Whittier carefully considered ASA's submission. Moreover, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, or misuse of funds. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review for those petitioners listed in Appendices A and C ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-737A1.txt
  • that form the basis for its conclusions with respect to the reclassification of any revenues associated with NetworkIP's non-contributing customers.'' Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the petition for reconsideration filed by Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order on reconsideration SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-739A1.txt
  • sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 214, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that this order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of Section 54.307(c) of the Commission's Rules filed by Allo Communications IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Bayland
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-741A1.txt
  • also direct the USAC to waive any associated invoice filing deadlines and any other procedural deadlines that were missed while these issues were on appeal with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeal filed by Lancaster School District, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-752A1.txt
  • erred in directing Clear World to remit to USAC any amount of excessive line-item charges that Clear World does not refund to its customers. ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), the request for review filed by Clear World is hereby DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-81A1.txt
  • cancel the late-filed revisions and adjust deltathree's contribution obligation for the relevant time period based on the original estimates and deltathree's actual revenues as reported in its annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722, the request filed by deltathree, Inc. on May 27, 2010 IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-820A1.txt
  • the filing window. In addition, we find no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse in the record at this time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 the authority delegated pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that sections 54.507(c) and 54.720(c) of the Commission's rules ARE WAIVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-82A1.txt
  • of the company or other knowledgeable individual. As such, we have insufficient basis to take any action on CML's request other than to dismiss its request without prejudice as procedurally defective. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722, the request filed by CML Communications LLC on November 1, 2010 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-835A1.txt
  • of section 54.503 of the Commission's rules in this instance is in the public interest and deny Juvenile Service's request for waiver. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for waiver of section 54.503 of the Commission's rules filed by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services on January 3, 2006, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-83A1.txt
  • review of the documentation and discontinue its recovery action against Youthbuild, if so warranted, no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Youthbuild Columbus Community School IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-859A1.txt
  • find that AT&T Mobility's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), AT&T Mobility LLC IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER to serve Tribal members residing on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT&T Mobility LLC SHALL SUBMIT additional information pursuant to section 54.209 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-85A1.txt
  • we direct USAC to issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bryan Independent School District IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-864A1.txt
  • 1 142.55 516.75 Tm 99 Tz (ACCORDiNGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.25 504.05 Tm 100 Tz (1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 491.55 Tm 101 Tz (0.291, 1.3 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722, the request) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 478.849 Tm 99 Tz (filed by BCG, Inc. IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 106.8 453.399 Tm 87 Tz (9.) Tj 1 0 0 1 142.8 453.399 Tm 99 Tz (IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-86A1.txt
  • to issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Bayless Intermediate School on March 28, 2006 IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-87A1.txt
  • support based on the new schools' discounts rates, as long as the amount of funding committed is the same or lower than in the original requests. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests for waiver filed by the Camden City Public Schools, the School District of Greenville County, and the Lenoir County Public Schools ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications are REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order no later than 60 calendar days from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-88A1.txt
  • omitted item 21 attachments, USAC should treat the associated applications as out of window for the purposes of meeting the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 254, and 403, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that this report and order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.103(a), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-895A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 89.5 608.2 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 108.95 608 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.799 595.5 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.799 582.75 Tm (0.91, 0.291, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by Cascade School District #422 on October 10,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 570.299 Tm 98 Tz (2006, IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108 546.549 Tm 85 Tz (10.) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-896A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 108 595.25 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.6 582.75 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 297.6 582.549 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 342.95 582.299 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.6 569.799 Tm (0.91, 0.291, 54.722\(a\), that the requests for review filed by the Gila Bend Unified School District No. 24,) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.35 557.35 Tm (regarding FCC Form 471 application number
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-897A1.txt
  • sections 1-4 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 567.399 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 89.75 567.149 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 554.45 Tm 101 Tz (under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0,291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 541.75 Tm 99 Tz (54.722\(a\), that the Request for Review filed by Odyssey Charter School, Las Vegas, Nevada, IS) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 529.25 Tm (GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-127A1.txt
  • Wireless, Inc. Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719 through 54.725 of the Commission's rules and Petition for Waiver of Section 54.307(b) of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket Nos. 08-71, 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Jan. 17, 2012); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). 47 C.F.R § 54.307(b) (Filing requirements for a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier to be eligible to receive high-cost universal service support). 47 C.F.R. § 54.307(b). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-151A1.txt
  • listed in the appendix because the petitioners have failed to show special circumstances necessary for the Commission to waive the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-189A1.txt
  • the petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials reviewed in this order against the parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.txt
  • and Trillion's appeals and affirm USAC's decisions. We direct USAC to continue its recovery actions against Marana and Trillion. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Marana Unified School District as listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-200A1.txt
  • and committed. We thus deny in part e-BI's request for waiver seeking an expansion of the pilot participants' funding commitments. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 254, and 403, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that this order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-240A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-241A1.txt
  • price. We find that these 16 petitioners also did not demonstrate that good cause exists to justify a waiver of section 54.523 of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review or request for waiver filed by Fairfield County School District IS GRANTED and its underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-247A1.txt
  • not conduct a fair and open competitive bidding process. We further find that the petitioners have not demonstrated that good cause exists to waive the requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Laurens County School District
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-248A1.txt
  • eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties based on the denials that are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-24A1.txt
  • Tm 91 Tz ('Walnut Hill Telephone Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.85 183.85 Tm (Company Pursuant to Section 1.3, 32.18,) Tj 1 0 0 1 237.35 183.649 Tm 88 Tz /OPBaseFont5 11 Tf (54.719) Tj 1 0 0 1 267.6 183.399 Tm 91 Tz /OPBaseFont4 11 Tf (and 54.722 of the Commission's rules and Petition for Waiver of) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.1 172.099 Tm (Section 32.27\(c\) of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 \(filed Dec. 22, 2011\); 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 477.35 169.75 Tm 65 Tz /OPBaseFont3 11 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 489.6 171.399 Tm 88 Tz /OPBaseFont6 11 Tf
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-250A1.txt
  • record, we affirm USAC's decisions and deny these requests. We also find that petitioners have not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed AllWays, Inc. (Prairie Hills
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-259A1.txt
  • the Petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against the Petitioners for those applications listed in Appendix A from which it is seeking recovery. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the Petitioners for the applications listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-260A1.txt
  • competitive bidding requirements. In addition, we find that petitioners have not demonstrated that good cause exists to justify a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Charlton County School System
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-261A1.txt
  • to grant a limited waiver of section 54.504(c) of our rules and remand Oakland's appeal to USAC for further processing consistent with our decision. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review and waiver filed by Oakland Unified School District IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-278A1.txt
  • petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials we reviewed in this order for those parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-27A1.txt
  • /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 450 592.149 Tm 104 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.05 592.149 Tm 108 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 579.649 Tm 111 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\), the) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 566.95 Tm 110 Tz (requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A and B ARE) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 554.45 Tm (GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-28A1.txt
  • 0 0 1 449.5 706.35 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 471.8 706.35 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 693.649 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.29 1, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 299 693.649 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 344.4 693.649 Tm 103 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the commission's rules, 47 c.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.799 678.75 Tm 69 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 84.2 680.95 Tm 100 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the) Tj 1 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-29A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 448.3 286.849 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 470.85 286.849 Tm /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.85 274.6 Tm 100 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 162.95 274.6 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 208.05 274.35 Tm 103 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 480.95 274.149 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.6 261.649 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (the Requests for Review filed by Los Lunas School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-300A1.txt
  • its review of the applications listed in appendix B, USAC shall discontinue recovery actions against those applicants that provide sufficient documentation to support their discount calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-323A1.txt
  • the submitted invoices. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-334A1.txt
  • release date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or NATIVE's applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review filed by Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of Vocational Education IS GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-335A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by Mary Queen of Martyrs and Norwalk La Mirada Unified School District ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-369A1.txt
  • each application and deny these requests. We also find that petitioners have not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of section 54.505 of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Enterprise City Schools Enterprise,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-370A1.txt
  • urban pursuant to E-rate program rules. We also find that petitioners have not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of section 505(b)(3) the Commission's E-rate rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX A Appeals Denied on the Merits Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-403A1.txt
  • negotiate with prospective bidders.'' We thus direct USAC to continue recovery actions against the party or parties responsible for the rule violation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the appeals listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioners Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Appeal Filed Networks and More! Inc. 229937 2001 January 3, 2007 251684 2001 319633 2002 297874 2002 298093 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-413A1.txt
  • petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials we reviewed in this order for those parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-433A1.txt
  • ``except upon leave granted upon a separate pleading for leave to file.'' Because no such separate pleading has been submitted, we dismiss the petition as untimely. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, 54.722(a), the petition for reconsideration filed by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Seidman, Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02-6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-460A1.txt
  • of this order. In remanding the application to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested or Approach Learning's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review filed by the Approach Learning and Assessment Center IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Requests for Review of Decisions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-489A1.txt
  • with this order. We direct USAC, in light of the foregoing, to take into consideration the revised discount calculation in its recovery action related to Friendship. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review filed by the petitioners listed in the Appendix A ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-569A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-596A1.txt
  • Nuestros Valores's request. We also find that Nuestros Valores has not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Nuestros Valores Charter School regarding equipment that was not installed in funding year 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d) (requiring that the implementation of non-recurring services occur
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-599A1.txt
  • of section 54.504 of the Commission's rules. We further find that Portales has not demonstrated that good cause exists to waive the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Portales Municipal School District ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9029, para. 481 (1997)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-604A1.txt
  • eligibility of the services or the underlying applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties based on the denials that are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-605A1.txt
  • eligibility of the services or the underlying applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties based on the denials that are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review filed by Trillion Partners, Inc. ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-629A1.txt
  • Two services for those funding years when South Bay's discount was lower than the threshold for funding Priority Two requests. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Petition for Waiver filed by South Bay Union School District on March 30, 2004 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-691A1.txt
  • is seeking recovery, and from Fayetteville or Cumberland County Library, except with respect to the support for the latter's purchase of telecommunications, which USAC should recover. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-693A1.txt
  • we also direct USAC to extend any procedural deadlines, such as the FCC Form 486 or invoicing deadlines, that might be necessary to effectuate our ruling. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for review and waiver filed by Onslow County School District and the supplement to the request for review and waiver filed by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-708A1.txt
  • In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioner's applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Saint Raphael Academy as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-711A1.txt
  • review of the record, we deny the 10 requests because the petitioners have failed to show special circumstances necessary for the Commission to waive the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Alex Public School Dist I-56
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-716A1.txt
  • release date of this order. In remanding this application to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioner's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Billings School District 2, Billings, Montana, IS GRANTED and the underlying application is REMANDED consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-720A1.txt
  • support to each of the relevant health care facilities as of the beginning on the circuit acceptance (start) date. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722, that the requests for review filed by YKHC and GCI on August 23, 2010, ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-732A1.txt
  • services or the petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties listed in Appendix A-C based on our findings in this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A, B and C ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-753A1.txt
  • petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials we reviewed in this order for those parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-754A1.txt
  • issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request filed by Diversified Computer Solutions, Inc. on December 24, 2002 IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent B. Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-771A1.txt
  • to the Florence, Marlboro and Orangeburg school districts were funded. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals Diversified filed on behalf of Fairfield, Florence, Marlboro and Orangeburg as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Diversified Computer Solutions, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina, on behalf of Fairfield County School District, Florence County School District 3, Marlboro County School District and Orangeburg County School District 3, on April 22, 2002 and on March 14, 2002, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-796A1.txt
  • consistent with this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in Appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-797A1.txt
  • Based on our review of the record, we find that the five petitioners failed to show that the entities denied funding are eligible for E-rate support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent B. Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed CCRC Community Link Breese,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-812A1.txt
  • to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioner's application. At this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse in the record. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-84A1.txt
  • the submitted invoices. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-855A1.pdf
  • of the submitted documentation. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review and for waiver and review filed by the petitioners listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications listed in Appendices A and B ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-85A1.txt
  • to the ultimate eligibility of the services or of Loneman's application. At this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud and abuse in the record. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review or waiver filed by Loneman Day School, Ogala, South Dakota, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-863A1.pdf
  • not required to use the eligibility criteria for the Lifeline program provided for in section 54.409(a) and (b) of the Commission's rules until April 1, 2013. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the request for waiver filed by USTelecom are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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, 254, and sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-86A1.txt
  • these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in appendix A ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218325A1.txt
  • sentence of Paragraph 5 of the released text should read as follows: ``Upon review of the record in the Request for Review, we conclude that King and Queen's application does not meet the standards articulated in Naperville.'' Paragraph 6 of the released text should read as follows: ``Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by King and Queen County Public Schools, King and Queen Courthouse, Virginia, on July 12, 2000 IS DENIED.'' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lloyd A. Hamlin, King and Queen County Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305999A1.txt
  • we direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against these petitioners and to process any outstanding invoices.'' Paragraph 9 on page 4 is corrected to read as follows: ``IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that USAC SHALL DISCONTINUE its recovery actions against Albuquerque School District, Albuquerque, NM, and Hope Lutheran School, Inc., Waukesha, WI.'' Appendix A of the Order is amended by correcting the Application Number and the Funding Year for Albuquerque School District to read as follows: Applicant Application Number Funding Year Date
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308928A1.txt
  • Name of Jesus School, The Center for Life Enrichment, and The Potomac School.'' Paragraph 3 is corrected to read as follows: ``ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Burlington Township School District, Holy Name of Jesus, Lakewood Cheder School, The Center for Life Enrichment, and The Potomac School ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-73A1.txt
  • of the applicants; (2) the omitted information could be easily discerned by SLD through examination of other information included in the application; and (3) the application is otherwise substantially complete. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, is REMANDED to the Schools and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
  • Commission the final audit report. (k) Based on the final audit report, the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may take any action necessary to ensure that the universal service support mechanisms operate in a manner consistent with the requirements of this Part, as well as such other action as is deemed necessary and in the public interest. 96. Section 54.722 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 54.722 Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission. (a) Requests for review of Administrator decisions that are submitted to the Federal Communications Commission shall be considered and acted upon by the Wireline Competition Bureau; provided, however, that requests for review that raise novel questions of fact, law
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-339A1.txt
  • documents through the ECFS system. We strongly encourage parties to make use of the ECFS filing option to ensure that their requests for review arrive at the Commission in a timely fashion. Our ECFS filing option ensures accurate and more efficient processing. Parties will still be able to file by facsimile at 202-418-0187. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in Attachment A are DEEMED timely filed with the Commission. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in Attachment B ARE GRANTED a 60-day opportunity to resubmit their pleadings electronically with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-8A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-8A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-8A1.txt
  • for requests seeking review of decisions issued on or after August 13, 2001. See Implementation of Interim Filing Procedures for Filings of Requests for Review, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, FCC 01-376 (rel. December 26, 2001; erratum rel. December 28, 2001; second erratum rel. January 4, 2002). 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). >. Eighth Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 25058, 25091-25094, paras. 66-71. USAC's operations include three divisions created pursuant to the Commission's regulations: the High Cost and Low Income Division, the Schools and Libraries Division, and the Rural Health Care Division, each of which is responsible for its respective universal service support mechanism. 47 C.F.R. § 54.701(g)(1). For each of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.txt
  • in the program. The Administrator's diligence in finding and addressing the problems cited in the instant Order for Funding Year 2002 are a reflection of that commitment. We direct the Administrator to carefully scrutinize the applications submitted following the re-bidding process, to ensure full compliance with all of our rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §54.722(a), that the following Requests for Review ARE DENIED: Request for Review filed by Ysleta Independent School District, El Paso, Texas, on January 30, 2003; Request for Review filed by International Business Machines, Inc., on behalf of Ysleta Independent School District, El Paso, Texas, filed on January 30, 2003; Request for Review of Donna
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-314A1.txt
  • remand the Winston-Salem application to SLD. In doing so, we emphasize that we make no determination as to whether the applicant is ultimately entitled to any funding, as SLD must scrutinize all applications for ineligible services and compliance with all program rules, including all prospective clarifications enunciated in the Ysleta Order. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the above-captioned Requests for Review ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein and REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Winston-Salem / Forsyth County School District, CC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.txt
  • if, for some reason, USAC has mistakenly disbursed an amount in excess of that which the entity is allowed under our rules. If there are unique reasons why a particular entity believes recovery for a rule violation is inappropriate, that party is always free to present such information in seeking review of USAC's decision to recover monies, pursuant to section 54.722. We note, however, that we are without authority to waive statutory violations. While we have not, to date, enunciated a bright line standard for determining whether a particular funding request or activities related to it depart from this standard to a degree that constitutes waste, fraud or abuse, we emphasize that we, and USAC in the first instance, retain the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-72A1.txt
  • Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202, 9221, paras. 55-56 (2003). 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(b). Letter from Ray Swinney, Superintendent, Mescalero Apache School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30, 2002 (Request for Review); Bureau Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 26095, para. 2. Request for Review. Id. at 1. Id. Id. Id. 47 C.F.R. §54.722(a). Bureau Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 26095, para. 3. Id. at 26095-96, paras. 4-7. Id. at 26095, para. 3. Application for Review at 5-6. The Bureau has granted few Requests for Review for missing a SLD appeal deadline. In the cases that have been granted, the Bureau generally found evidence of mistake on the part of SLD or some other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-112A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-45 order Adopted: July 31, 2006 Released: August 7, 2006 By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement. introduction In this Order, we grant requests for review filed by Darien Telephone Company, Inc. (Darien), Logan Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Logan), and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company (R&B) pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. The companies request that the Commission review decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) that significantly reduced the companies' safety net additive support, and deducted previously dispersed safety net additive support from their universal service support payments. USAC recalculated the companies' safety net additive support pursuant to the Wireline Competition Bureau's (Bureau's) guidance in interpreting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-170A1.txt
  • 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 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 Kan-ed, Kansas Board of Regents' Request for Waiver IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as described herein. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-54A1.txt
  • 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 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-55A1.txt
  • USAC completes its application review procedures for the appeals identified in this Order, it may conclude that funding is not warranted and deny the request. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), this Order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all pending appeals before this Commission identified in the Appendix of this Order ARE REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.txt
  • 493 U.S. at 153, where the Court observed that ``[t]he objects sought merely must have been `compiled' when the Government invokes the Exemption.'' AFR at 1, 2. 47 C.F.R. § 54.701. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15810. See id., 19 FCC Rcd at 15808, 15809, 15811, 15817 & n.49, 15819, 15830 and 15835. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.722 and 54.723. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15809 and 15835. See, e.g., Burka v. Dep't of Health & Human Svcs, 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finding data tapes created and possessed by a contractor to be agency records because of extensive supervision exercised by agency which evidenced ``constructive control''). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). AFR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.txt
  • 36.605 of the Commission's rules provides that carriers may qualify for safety net additive support in more than one year. Specifically, the Commission granted requests for review of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) filed by Darien Telephone Company, Inc. (Darien), Logan Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Logan), and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company (R&B) pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. USAC's decisions significantly reduced the companies' safety net additive support, and deducted previously dispersed safety net additive support from their universal service support payments. USAC had recalculated the companies' safety net additive support pursuant to the Wireline Competition Bureau's (Bureau's) guidance in interpreting section 36.605 of the Commission's rules. The Commission found that the Bureau's interpretation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-60A1.txt
  • of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-61A1.txt
  • the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 filed by the petitioners as listed in Appendix A and B ARE GRANTED AND REMANDED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-62A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-62A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-62A1.txt
  • integrity of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the petitioners as listed in Appendices A, B and C ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-63A1.txt
  • the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 47. C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b)(4) and (c) ARE WAIVED, to the extent detailed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-64A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-64A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-64A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Macomb Intermediate School District Technology Consortium, Clinton Township, Michigan, IS DENIED in part and GRANTED in part and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-160A1.txt
  • assist such providers in obtaining FCC Filer IDs and filing FCC Forms 499-Q and FCC Forms 499-A, consistent with the Commission's requirements. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, 202, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 202, and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that InterCall's Request for Review IS DENIED IN PART, and GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that InterCall's Petition for Stay is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1.103(a) and 1.4(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.103(a), 1.4(b)(2), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-83A1.txt
  • (the Commission retains the ultimate control over the operation of the federal universal service support mechanisms through its authority to establish rules governing the support mechanisms and its review of administrative decisions that are appealed to the Commission). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c) (any person aggrieved by an action of USAC may seek review from the Commission); 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a) (requests for review will be acted on by WCB in the first instance, except for novel questions of fact, law or policy, which will be acted on by the full Commission). The Commission may review USAC decisions sua sponte. See Changes to the Board of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd at 25093 ¶ 68 (granting WCB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-122A1.txt
  • justifying waiver. Therefore, we find that the 160 petitioners listed in appendix D did not present special circumstances justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeals filed by the petitioners, as listed in appendices A, B, and C, ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.txt
  • report and order in the Federal Register. 119. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.723(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification or Waiver filed by E-rate Central, as identified in paragraph 84 herein, IS DISMISSED. 120. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-27A1.txt
  • this order. Accordingly, we remand the underlying funding year 2008 and 2009 FCC Form 471 applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order. ordering clauses 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 underlying applications associated with the Requests for Waivers filed by the State of Louisiana Department of Education, the Recovery School District, and the New Orleans Public Schools filed on June 28, 2006, April 20, 2009, June 22, 2009, July 16, 2009, and August 4, 2009, respectively, ARE GRANTED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-39A1.txt
  • of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 by Chicago Public Schools, Coosa County School District, Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools, Holyoke School District, KIPP Academy, and Whitley County School System ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-60A1.txt
  • Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Ann Arbor Public Schools, et al., Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD-542873, et al., CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17319, para. 2 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2010). See Bishop Perry Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5327, para. 26. . 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). 1-60 1-60 � � â w é
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-46A1.txt
  • 2 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2004), applications for review pending (One-Year Deadline Order). 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(e). 47 C.F.R. § 54.711(a). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 54.707. See Universal Service Administrative Company, Program Integrity: Audits & Assessments, available at http://www.usac.org/cont/about/program-integrity/audits.aspx (last visited Apr. 17, 2012). Contributors that disagree with USAC audits findings may seek review by the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.722. 47 C.F.R. § 54.708. 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(d). 47 C.F.R. § 54.713(a). 47 C.F.R. § 54.713(c). 47 U.S.C. § 503. See Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Universal Service Fund Enforcement, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/usfc/Oth.html (last visited Mar. 14, 2012). Since 2003, the Enforcement Bureau has issued over 50 Notices of Apparent Liability, Forfeiture Orders, and Consent Decrees relating to universal service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-8A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-8A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-8A1.txt
  • Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (writ of replevin); Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337 (1969) (wage garnishment). See 2004 Audit Resolution Plan, 20 FCC Rcd at 1065. See id. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 347-348. See Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15816, para. 24. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.722. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.1.115 (a), 54.719(c). See 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). See AFR at 11. In its previous filings, Integrity asked the Bureau to set specific time limits on USAC's review. See, e.g., Request for Review at 25-26; Petition for Reconsideration at 3. See supra para. 11. (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-8 p q `„Ð � � �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992144.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992144.txt
  • on January 1, 1998. Because the Eighth Reconsideration Order's rules were not in effect at the time USD 217 received the funding commitment decision for which it sought review by USAC, its appeal to USAC is not governed by the filing deadline set forth in those rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 12, 1999, by the United School District 217 of Rolla, Kansas, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that USD 217's application IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of USAC for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992202.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Therefore, Methacton was required to file its appeal of Audubon's November 20, 1998 Funding Commitment Decision Letter no later than December 21, 1998. Thus, we dismiss the Audubon portion of the appeal for Methacton's failure to satisfy the ÁACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under À 0.91, 9.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 18, 1999 by the Methacton School District IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992219.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992219.txt
  • notice of the rules was provided long before St. Margaret's-McTernan was required to file its appeal with the Administrator. Moreover, St. Margaret's-McTernan has failed to show why it should not be held to the same standard of notice as all parties potentially affected by this rule. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed July 20, 1999 by St. Margaret's-McTernan School IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 254 (h)(1)(B). 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. See Letter from Henry A. Cirpiano, Jr. to Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992239.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992239.txt
  • the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 4, 1999 by the Bremerton School District 100-C IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa M. Zaina Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2239
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992242.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992242.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 9, 1999 by the Monrovia Consortium IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa M. Zaina Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2242 \ \ þÿÿÿ
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992365.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992365.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 2, 1999 by the Lancaster County Public Schools of Kilmarnock, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. 99-2365
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992366.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992366.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 2, 1999 by the Norfolk Public Schools of Norfolk, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. ##-#### 99-2366
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992368.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992368.txt
  • two services being considered separately on their own merits. Therefore, we remand Sparta's application to SLD and we direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Sparta Area School District, Sparta, Wisconsin on June 3, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992486.doc
  • pending before the Administrator. Therefore, the Common Carrier Bureau dismisses HCUSD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on HCUSD's initial appeal, HCUSD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Havana Community Unit School District 126 of Havana, Illinois, on August 11, 1999, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Kristina J. Lewis, Havana Community Unit Schools District
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992487.doc
  • one and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Hewlett-Woodmere's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Hewlett-Woodmere UFSD, Woodmere, New York, on June 9, 1999 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992488.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 14, 1999 by the Independence Unified School District 446 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2488 \
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992489.doc
  • two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand North Middlesex's application to SLD and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Middlesex Regional School District, Townsend, Massachusetts, on May 11, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992490.doc
  • priority one and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Olton's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Olton Branch Library, Olton, Texas, on June 21, 1999 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992534.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992534.txt
  • Gustine submit one. Had the March 16, 1998 copy of the contract existed then, Gustine had the opportunity to provide it at that time. In light of this circumstance, the record in this proceeding demonstrates that SLD's funding decision was fully in accord with the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Gustine Independent School District, Gustine, Texas, filed June 21, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 254 (h)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 504.503. 47 C.F.R. § 54.504. 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(1) and (b)(3). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992537.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992537.txt
  • Sulphur Springs is entitled to discounts for this service. To the extent necessary to effectuate the decision above, we grant a waiver of section 54.507(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. This rule provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by White Sulphur Springs School District on April 22, 1999, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review White Sulphur Springs' funding application and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter consistent with the decision above. IT IS FURTHER
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992588.doc
  • ensure that the service provider it had contracted with was indeed a telecommunications provider whose status as a telecommunications provider would be appropriately reflected in the Form 498. In light of these findings, we conclude that SLD correctly denied funding for MAISD's request for telecommunications discounts. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Bresnan Communications on June 24, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992590.doc
  • indicate that the Administrator never received that letter of appeal. The proffered copy of the January 26, 1999 letter, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that the letter was filed with the Administrator within the thirty-day appeal window. We, therefore, dismiss Rainbow's appeal as untimely filed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Pediatric Library of Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio, on June 24, 1999, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Thomas W. Hayes, Director, Pediatric Learning Center of Rainbow Babies and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992591.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Peoria Public Schools on June 25, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2591 Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2591 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ðÿÿÿ
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992604.doc
  • or equipment that do not qualify as telecommunications services, Internet access, or internal connections. While video service is an eligible telecommunications service, Western Heights' internal connections hardware used to support this service is not eligible for discounts because it does not provide a necessary transmission function. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Western Heights School District on June 24, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992611.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Brighton New York School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2611 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � `
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992612.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by Cotulla Independent School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2612 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ±
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992613.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Forsyth County Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2613 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ± Á Ñ á ñ „0ý
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992614.doc
  • and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Greenfield's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Greenfield School District on July 2, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992615.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 25, 1999 by the Pioneerland Library System IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2615 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ± Á
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992616.doc
  • products. Additionally, it indicated that it would not provide funding for possible change orders. The record evidence in this case indicates that the amount of ineligible products and services total $137,000, representing 62 percent of the requested amount. Under these circumstances, SLD properly denied Redwood's request. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Redwood City School District on June 25, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992617.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Spencer East Brookfield Regional School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2617 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992727.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992727.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator. Therefore, we dismiss Chadron's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Chadron's initial appeal, Chadron may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Chadron Public Library, Chadron, Nebraska on September 7, 1999 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Imogene Horse, Director, and Dana Crews, Technical Services Librarian, Chadron Public Library, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992728.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992728.txt
  • adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Horton's request to waive the rule and to reopen its case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Horton Free Public Library, Horton, Kansas, on September 7, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Universal Service Administrative Co. to Horton Free Public Library, dated July 8, 1999 (Funding Commitment Decision Letter) (emphasis added).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992729.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992729.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 10, 1999 by the Logandale Middle School, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2729
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992730.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992730.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letters of Appeal were not filed within the specified 30-day period, they will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed September 13, 1999 and September 21, 1999 by the Yeshiva of Central Queens ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2730 \
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992772.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992772.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 13, 1999 by the Regional Educational Media Center IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2772 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992784.doc
  • SPIN change was not necessitated by any default on the part of the original vendor. Rather, it resulted from the school's own voluntary action. Thus, because Delaplaine's SPIN change request did not fall within the enumerated exceptions, we find that the Administrator correctly denied the request. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Delaplaine Public Schools on September 14, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992785.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 15, 1999 by the Sacred Heart Parish School IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99-xxxx Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2785 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Âÿÿÿ Íÿÿÿ Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ñÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ @& „|ü !
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992796.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992796.txt
  • fail to present any special circumstances warranting a waiver. Carolina's explanation for failing to file its appeal within the 30-day deadline does not provide a basis for treating it differently from other applicants that are required to appeal SLD's decision in accordance with specified filing deadlines. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 20, 1999 by Carolina Friends School IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(b); see also "SLD Procedure for Post-Commitment Appeals" at http://www.sl.universalservice/org/reference/appeals.asp. ("To submit a letter of appeal to the SLD":
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992797.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992797.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 20, 1999 by Foxcroft Academy IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2797 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ñÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ Çÿÿÿ Óÿÿÿ Ôÿÿÿ Öÿÿÿ @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992798.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992798.txt
  • of time that corresponds to Joplin's instant funding request. 8. To the extent necessary to effectuate the decision above, we waive section 54.507(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. This rule section provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Joplin R8 School District on June 16, 1999 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of the ruling in this order. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992799.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992799.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 24, 1999 by the Lincoln Intermediate Unit IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2799 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ±
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992800.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992800.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 19, 1999 by Putnam City Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2800 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ñÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ Çÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ Óÿÿÿ Ôÿÿÿ Öÿÿÿ @& „|ü ! 1 A
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992801.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992801.txt
  • further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. To the extent necessary to effectuate the decision above, we grant a waiver of section 54.507(b) of the Commission's rules. This rule provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Simpson County School District, Mendenhall, Mississippi, filed June 29, 1999, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and that Simpson County's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that section 54.507(b)(2), 47 C.F.R. §
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992802.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992802.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 21, 1999 by White Oak Public School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2802 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992803.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992803.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 17, 1999 by St. John - St. James Lutheran School, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2803 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � `
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992831.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 17, 1999 by John Curtis Christian Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -2831
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992832.doc
  • the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. §1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 17, 1999 by the Morton Memorial Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2832 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ±
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992833.doc
  • within 30 days of the date of the decision. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period and Wilkinsburg has not made a showing warranting the acceptance of its late-filed appeal, the Request for Review will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 8, 1999 by the School District of the Borough of Wilkinsburg, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Wilkinsburg Request for Review at 2. -2833 -2833 ! H r s ` '' ²
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992954.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992954.txt
  • contract for services delivered from January 1, 1999 through June 30, 1999. We, therefore, remand Chatham's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Chatham County Schools, Pittsboro, North Carolina, on April 19, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992955.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992955.txt
  • it does not provide a basis for granting Crookston's appeal. Crookston bears the responsibility for reviewing the forms it files with SLD for any discrepancies or errors. Its failure to rectify its error in a timely manner provides an insufficient basis for granting the requested relief. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Crookston Public Schools on August 30, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992956.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992956.txt
  • such clarifying information. Instead, New Kensington has submitted entirely new information to the Commission, omitting mention of ineligible services previously requested, and requesting for the first time funding for certain additional services. Under these circumstances, we must affirm SLD's denial of New Kensington's application for discounted services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by New Kensington-Arnold School District on May 24, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992957.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992957.txt
  • issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. To effectuate the decision above, we recognize that it may be necessary also to waive section 54.507 of the Commission's rules. This rule section provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Runnemede Public Schools, Runnemede, New Jersey on September 10, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Runnemede's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91 and 0.291 that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992983.doc
  • signature of a representative of the carrier, it does not meet the definition of an existing contract, and USAC properly refused to provide support to Sidney Health Center, Glendive Medical Center, Colstrip Medical Center, and the Eastern Montana Community Mental Health Center based upon an existing contract. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on August 23, 1999 by Eastern Montana Telemedicine Network on behalf of the Sidney Health Center, Glendive Medical Center, Colstrip Medical Center, and the Eastern Montana Community Mental Health Center IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Pub. L.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99342.doc
  • above-captioned request for review IS EXTENDED BY sixty days from the original ninety day deadline. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). 99-342 99-342 Ø Ù ÷ ø Ó ò Ó ò
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000015.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000015.txt
  • between July 10, 1997 and January 30, 1998, Brimfield was required to seek competitive bids for all services eligible for support for Funding Year 2. Because Brimfield did not seek competitive bids for Funding Year 2, we find that the SLD correctly denied Brimfield's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the September 24, 1999 Letter of Appeal filed by Brimfield School District #309, Brimfield, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000016.doc
  • decision. In order to timely appeal the August 3, 1999 decision letter, Madison was required to have filed its appeal by September 2, 1999. Because Madison filed its Letter of Appeal with the Administrator outside of the specified 30-day period, we deny its request for review here. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed October 1, 1999, by Madison School District No. 321, Rexburg, Idaho, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Services Administrative Company, to Brent W. Orr, Madison School District No. 321,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000017.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000017.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 27, 1999 by the Mark Twain Union Elementary School District on September 27, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000018.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000018.txt
  • SLD cannot determine the appropriate level of discount funding to which Ozarks may be entitled. Because Ozarks has failed to provide the requested information, no portion of its request for discounts on teleconferencing services may be funded. Therefore, we find that the Administrator correctly denied Ozarks' request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ozarks Unlimited Resources Cooperative on behalf of the Greenbrier School District on April 12, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000019.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000019.txt
  • showing that it was timely filed. In light of these circumstances, we conclude that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ozarks must be denied, since there is no evidence that the FCC Form 471 in question was, in fact, filed with SLD within the filing window. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ozarks Unlimited Resources Cooperative on behalf of Yellville-Summit School District, dated September 29, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000020.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000020.txt
  • completing its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. We, therefore, conclude that SLD correctly calculated the funding commitment decision for funding request number 151098 based on the $557.76 estimated monthly pre-discount cost as reported by Intermediate Unit #19 on its FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal by Scranton School District, Scranton, Pennsylvania on behalf of Intermediate Unit #19 Consortium, Archbald, Pennsylvania IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000041.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000041.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by Butts County Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -41
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000042.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000042.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Denison Independent School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 99-#### -42 8¨È
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000084.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 4, 1999 by the North Central Area Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000085.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000085.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss River Road ISD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on River Road ISD's initial appeal, River Road ISD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by River Road Independent School District of Amarillo, Texas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Kathy Hicks, Technology Coordinator, River Road Independent School District, to Office of the Secretary,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000105.doc
  • to January 30, 1998, the date upon which the SLD web site became operational. Thus, the tariffed services in question were not subject to ``pre-existing contracts,'' and SLD properly denied Ruidoso's funding requests for those tariffed services for failure to comply with the 28-day competitive bidding requirement. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ruidoso Municipal School District, Ruidoso, New Mexico on May 6, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lawrence E. Strickling Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, from Paul Wirth, Director of Instructional Support, Ruidoso Municipal School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000174.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 22, 1999 by Bradford Community Unit School District #1 on October 22, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -174
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000175.doc
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator. Therefore, we dismiss Frazier's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Frazier's initial appeal, Frazier may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Frazier School District, Perryopolis, Pennsylvania, on October 26, 1999, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Frederick Smeigh, Frazier School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 26, 1999 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000176.doc
  • appeals pending before the Administrator. Therefore, we dismiss Appellants' Joint Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Appellants' individual appeals, Appellants may then appeal to the Commission if they believe such appeal is warranted at that time. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Joint Letter of Appeal filed by Hartshorne Independent School District 1, Hartshorne, Oklahoma, Swink School District 21, Swink, Oklahoma, and Tyrone Independent School District 53, Tyrone, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Jane
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000177.doc
  • is not a basis to grant relief that would be contrary to our rules. Applicants themselves have the burden of complying with applicable statutes and rules. Here, it was incumbent upon McAllen to be aware of and comply with the Commission's rules regarding the competitive bidding requirement. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by McAllen Independent School District, McAllen, Texas on October 12, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000200.doc
  • to date, Providence will receive the benefit of an estimated $53,000 from the universal service support mechanism for rural health care providers. Because RHCD, as indicated above, has taken steps to favorably resolve the matter that is at issue before us, we dismiss Providence's appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Providence Seward Medical Center IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim Sefton, Supervisor, Providence Seward Medical Center to Federal Communications Commission, dated September 27, 1999 (Providence Letter). Pub. L. No.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000287.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000287.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 17, 1999 by Binas Yisaschor IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -287 JI
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000288.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000288.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 23, 1999, by Reedsville School District, Reedsville, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -288 JI JI
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000289.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000289.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 16, 1999 by Stanton Public Library IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -289 JI JI
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000329.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000329.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 22, 1999, by McMinnville SDA Elementary School, McMinnville, Oregon, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -329
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000330.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000330.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 12, 1999, by LaSalle Academy, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -330
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000331.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 16, 1999, by Rio Grande School, Santa Fe, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -331
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000332.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000332.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 1, 1999, by Southwest Dubois County School Corporation, Huntingburg, Indiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -332
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000382.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000382.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 26, 1999, by the Alamo Heights Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -382 þÿÿÿ
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000424.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000424.txt
  • has appeals pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Holcomb SD's Letter of Appeals to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decisions on Holcomb SD's appeal, Holcomb SD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed on December 6, 1999, and December 13, 1999, by Holcomb Unified School District, Holcomb, Kansas, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letters of Appeal of Randy Ackerman, Holcomb Unified School District, to Office
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000425.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000425.txt
  • Kasson-Mantorville has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Kasson-Mantorville's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Kasson-Mantorville's initial appeal, Kasson-Mantorville may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on January 10, 2000 by Kasson-Mantorville Schools, Kasson, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of James Turner, Kasson-Mantorville Schools, to Federal Communications Commission (filed January 10, 2000). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000426.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000426.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Sacred Heart School's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sacred Heart School's initial appeal, Sacred Heart School may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on November 26, 1999 by Sacred Heart School, Mount Holly, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Ronald J. Maniglia, Principal, Sacred Heart School, to Office of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000427.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000427.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss McFarland SD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on McFarland SD's initial appeal, McFarland SD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on January 11, 2000 by School District of McFarland, McFarland, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Scott R. Brown, Director of Business Service, McFarland School District, to Office
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000428.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000428.txt
  • before the Administrator, we dismiss Spring Cove SD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Spring Cove SD's appeal, Spring Cove SD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on December 9, 1999 by Spring Cove School District of Roaring Spring, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Attorney, to Federal Communications Commission (filed December 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000497.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000497.txt
  • case, because Albany has appeals pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Albany's Letters of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Albany's appeals, Albany may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeals are warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed on December 9, 1999, and January 14, 1999, by City School District of Albany, Albany, New York, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letters of Appeal of Lonnie E. Palmer, City School District
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000528.doc
  • the limited exceptions for existing contracts under section 54.604(a) of the Commission's rules. Because Northern Arizona signed the contract with US WEST within the 28-day posting period, we conclude that Northern Arizona failed to satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding rules, and RHCD properly denied Northern Arizona's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on November 24, 1999 by Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, from Catherine P. Romeo-Wolff, Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000529.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000529.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 30, 1999, by Newman Grove Public Schools, Newman Grove, Nebraska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -529
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000530.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000530.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss South Western's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on South Western's initial appeal, South Western may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on November 16, 1999 by South Western School District, Hanover, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Dr. Barbara Rupp, Superintendent, to Office of the Secretary, FCC (filed November
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000560.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000560.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Union County's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Union County's appeal, Union County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on November 1, 1999 by Union County Public Schools, Morganfield, Kentucky, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Michael S. Pruitt, District Technology Coordinator, to Office of the Secretary, FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000610.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Bemidji, Bemidji, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -610
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000611.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Detroit Lakes, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -611
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000612.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Hillsboro, Hillsboro, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -612
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000613.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Jamestown, Jamestown, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -613
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000614.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Mayville, Mayville, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -614
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000625.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000625.txt
  • to provide a fair and uniform period applicable to all schools and libraries seeking discounts for eligible services to permit competitive bidding by all potential bidders for those services. Currituck has not presented any arguments or unique circumstances that would warrant granting a waiver of this rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on July 2, 1999, by Currituck County Schools, Currituck, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jesse Stallings, Currituck County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2, 1999 (Letter of Appeal). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000732.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000732.txt
  • Lamont has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lamont's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lamont's initial appeal, Lamont may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lamont School District, Lamont, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dave Beckman, Lamont School District, to Federal Communications Commission (filed January 6, 2000) (Letter of Appeal). See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000761.doc
  • the 30-day filing deadline would cause it hardship because it will not receive its requested discounts for Internet access and telecommunications services. We find that Amelia has not demonstrated special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the 30-day filing requirement, and, therefore, Amelia's waiver request is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Amelia County Public Schools, Amelia, Virginia, on November 24, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Janet H. Ashman, Amelia County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 24, 1999. Letter from Universal Service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000762.doc
  • asking us to review a decision of the Administrator. The appeals process was established as the method by which applicants could seek review of an Administrator decision and West County has provided no basis for us to depart from that process. West County's appeal, therefore, is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by West County School District R-IV, Leadwood, Missouri, on January 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ron Yarbro, West County School District R-IV, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 7, 2000 (January
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000837.doc
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Dennehotso Boarding's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Dennehotso Boarding's initial appeal, Dennehotso Boarding may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Dennehotso Boarding School, Dennehotso, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Velma D. Eisenberger, Principal, United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000838.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 28, 2000, by Elk Grove Village Public Library, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -838
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000841.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000841.txt
  • Commission, filed January 14, 2000; Letter from James Konantz, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 18, 2000. Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(a). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -841 00-841 E J K E E
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000851.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 1, 1999, by Highland Community School District of Ainsworth - Riverside, Riverside, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -851
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000852.doc
  • October 5 funding commitment decision letters, relating to application numbers 142293, 123302, and 124574. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Vancouver's initial appeal with respect to these issues, Vancouver may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 28, 2000, by Vancouver Public Schools, Vancouver, Washington, with respect to the funding commitment letter regarding application number 119796, IS DENIED. FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001027.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001027.txt
  • 2, 2000; and Letter from Holly Lee and Dagobert Azam, RALLS Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 12, 2000. Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(a). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1027 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1027 I N O I I
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001042.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001042.txt
  • considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Archbishop Quigley's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Archbishop Quigley's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate Priority One services requested by Archbishop Quigley. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary, Chicago, Illinois, on April 1, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Quirk,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001043.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001043.txt
  • Two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Atlanta's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Atlanta's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate Priority One services request by Atlanta. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Atlanta C-3 School District, Atlanta, Missouri, on May 18, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Nuhn,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001044.txt
  • considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Bonner Springs' application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Bonner Springs' FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate Priority One services requested by Bonner Springs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bonner Springs Unified School District #204, Bonner Springs, Kansas on July 2, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent described herein and is otherwise DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001045.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001045.txt
  • signed until March 31, 1999, two days after Cochrane's allowable contract date. In submitting its FCC Form 470 for posting on the SLD website, as well as complying with the 28-day waiting period, Cochrane adhered to all applicable requirements with respect to the Commission's competitive bidding policy. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Cochrane-Fountain City School District, Fountain City, Wisconsin on October 12, 1999 IS GRANTED and that Cochrane's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Mieden,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001046.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001046.txt
  • in the original file to support the correct item, [it] would grant the appeal.'' Accordingly, based on SLD's discovery of the reference to the second, posted Form 470 in Methacton's Form 471, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand this matter to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Methacton School District, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on October 22, 1999 IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert F. Holly, Methacton School District, to Secretary, FCC, dated October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001057.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001057.txt
  • Regional High School, on behalf of Algonquin Regional High School and Northboro Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 14, 2000. Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(a). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -1057 Federal Communications Commission a f g a a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001058.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001058.txt
  • with the support requested, assuming twelve months of service, and does not include other factors, such as the length of the contract for which support is requested. Because SLD correctly determined the funding commitment based on the materials submitted by Call-A-Teen, Call-A-Teen's request for review is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2000, by Arizona Call-A-Teen Center, Phoenix, Arizona, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ralph Weinberg, Arizona Call-A-Teen Center, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed February 14, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001059.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001059.txt
  • before the Administrator, we dismiss Central Intermediate's Letter of Appeal regarding Application Number 138244 to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on this appeal, Central Intermediate may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2999, by Central Intermediate Unit 10, West Decatur, Pennsylvania, as it relates to Application Number 108215, IS DISMISSED as untimely. FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001131.doc
  • 1998). For this reason, we also reject the argument that the reference to November 1, 1998, in the attachments, reflects the date that PHS selected the carrier. Consequently, we conclude that PHS violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules, and that RHCD properly denied the PHS applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on December 17, 1999 by Presbyterian Healthcare Services on behalf of Espanola Hospital, Lincoln County Medical Center, PRMG - Clovis, Moreno Valley clinic, Socorro General Hospital, Dan C. Trigg Hospital, and Artesia General Hospital IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001187.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001187.txt
  • Carrier Bureau Letter from Leonard A. Gereau, Franklin County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -1187 00-1187 0 5 6 Í Î / 0 6 È trrppprr / 0 È
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001233.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001233.txt
  • party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Flora failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Flora's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Flora Community School District 35, Flora, Illinois, on March 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gerald Klein, Flora Community School District 35, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001277.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001277.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Blessed Sacrament's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Blessed Sacrament's appeal, Blessed Sacrament may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 17, 2000, by Blessed Sacrament School, Washington, DC, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Walsh, Blessed Sacrament School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001278.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001278.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Brevard County's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 8, 2000, by Brevard County School District, Viera, Florida, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001279.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 29, 2000, by Calallen Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William C. Ball, Calallen Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001280.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001280.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 23, 2000, by Casa Grande Union High School District, Casa Grande, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Steven R. DiMuzio, Casa Grande
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001281.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001281.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 27, 2000, by Covina-Valley Unified School District, Covina, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ray Harder, Covina-Valley Unified School District, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001282.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001282.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 28, 2000, by the Enlarged City School District of Troy, Troy, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Armand J. Reo,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001283.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001283.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 1, 2000, by Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School District No. 775, Kerkhoven, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kim Hippen, Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001284.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001284.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 14, 1999, by Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jenny Ettenheim, Milwaukee Jewish Day School, dated September
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001285.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001285.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss North Chicago's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on North Chicago's initial appeal, North Chicago may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tyrone Pipkin, North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 5,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001365.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001365.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 22, 2000, by Austin Public Library, Austin, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bob Gaines, Central Texas Library System,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001366.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001366.txt
  • Because B. F. Jones filed an appeal of the August 9, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we grant the instant Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to consider B. F. Jones' request for review of SLD's decision to deny FRN 170032. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by B. F. Jones Memorial Library, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and B.F. Jones' request for discounts for internal connections, FRN 170032, is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Elizabeth
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001367.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001367.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 7, 2000, by Des Moines Independent School District, Des Moines, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ron Meyers, Des Moines
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001369.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001369.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 7, 2000, by Gridley Unified School District, Gridley, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sally Mitchell, Gridley Unified School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001370.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001370.txt
  • party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Madison failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Madison's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Madison District Schools, Madison Heights, Michigan, on March 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jackie Keene, Madison District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001371.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 5, 2000, by Nicolet Distance Education Network, Rhinelander, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Penny Kuckkahn, Nicolet Distance Education Network,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001372.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001372.txt
  • a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Pinellas failed to file appeals of the Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decisions to dismiss Pinellas' appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Pinellas County Schools, Largo, Florida on March 10, 2000, and March 13, 2000, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Norman Kelton, Pinellas County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001373.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001373.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Queen of Peace failed to file an appeal of the November 16, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Queen of Peace's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Queen of Peace High School, Burbank, Illinois on March 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Irene Halko, Queen of Peace High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001374.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001374.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Red Wing failed to file an appeal of the August 3, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Red Wing's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by El Monte Union High School DistrictRed Wing Public Schools, Red Wing, Minnesota on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kathryn C. Leitz, Independent School District No. 256El
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001375.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001375.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by St. Cecilia School, Ames, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bryan Bradley, St. Cecilia School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001376.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001376.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by St. Paul's School, Wilmington, Delaware, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Karen Bolte, St. Paul School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001377.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001377.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2000, by Algonquin Regional High School, Northboro, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lincoln D. Lynch, III, Algonquin Regional
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001378.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001378.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Michael's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Michael's appeal, St. Michael may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Michael School, Brooklyn, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Margaret Ford, St. Michael School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 24, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001380.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001380.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 30, 2000, Talmud Torah Siach Yitzchok, Far Rockaway, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Moshe D. Goodman, Talmud
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001510.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001510.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Battle Lake failed to file an appeal of the August 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Battle Lake's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Battle Lake School, Battle Lake, Minnesota on April 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rick Bleichner, Battle Lake School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001511.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001511.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Dearborn failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Dearborn's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Dearborn Public Schools, Dearborn, Michigan on April 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Janeen Sharpe, Dearborn Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001512.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001512.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Minneapolis failed to file an appeal of the November 16, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Minneapolis' request to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Minneapolis School District 1, Minneapolis, Minnesota on March 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel T. Cincoski, Armstrong, Torseth, Skold & Rydeen, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001513.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001513.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Our Lady failed to file an appeal of the September 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Our Lady's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Our Lady Help of Christians Parish School, Allentown, Pennsylvania on April 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Charlene Verbetich, Our Lady Help of Christians Parish School, Allentown,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001514.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001514.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Oxford Hills failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Oxford Hills' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Oxford Hills School District M.S.A.D #17, Oxford, Maine on April 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mark Eastman, Oxford Hills School District M.S.A.D. #17, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001515.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001515.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 11, 2000, by Wathena Unified School District 406, Wathena, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leslie Rullman, Wathena Unified School District 406, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001516.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001516.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because York County failed to file an appeal of the August 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss York County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by York County Public Library, Yorktown, Virginia on April 14, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kevin Smith, York County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001517.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001517.txt
  • be permitted to amend completed Form 471s to remove ineligible service requests after the closure of the filing window deadline. If applicants were permitted to make such corrections, SLD would face significant additional administrative burdens. Therefore, we cannot permit Ubly to amend its FCC Form 471. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 28, 2000, by Ubly Community Schools, Ubly, Michigan, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Evelyn Smaglinsli, Ubly Community Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001546.doc
  • decision regarding FRN 232503 may have dealt with matters that were not addressed in the instant appeal to the Commission, Eastland may request review of the March 27, 2000 denial of Eastland's request for reconsideration of FRN 232503 within 30 days of the release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91., 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 3, 2000, by Eastland Independent School District, Eastland, Texas, IS DENIED with respect to Funding Request Numbers 232501 and 232509. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Letter of Appeal filed February 3, 2000, by Eastland Independent School District, Eastland, Texas, as it
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001547.doc
  • SLD. Because the Administrator's decision may have dealt with matters that were not addressed in the instant appeal to the Commission, Los Angeles may request review of the June 15, 2000 denial of Los Angeles's request for reconsideration within 30 days of the release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Konantz, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 18,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001563.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001563.txt
  • for either of the limited exceptions for existing contracts under section 54.604(a) of the Commission's rules. Thus, we also conclude that RHCD properly refused to approve Good Samaritan's request for support from the first day of the funding year (January 1, 1998) based upon an existing contract. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on March 8, 2000 by the Good Samaritan Health Systems Foundation of Kearney, Nebraska on behalf of the following four consortium members of the Mid-Nebraska Telemedicine Network: Cozad Community Hospital, Callaway District Hospital, Jennie M. Melham Memorial Medical Center, and Cambridge Memorial Hospital, IS DENIED.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001612.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001612.txt
  • for the services requested in the FCC Form 470. By completing and signing the FCC Form 471 before the waiting period expired, Minor indicated that it had ceased consideration of competitive bids, thereby undermining the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. The Bureau, therefore, denies Minor's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 21, 2000, by Minor High School, Adamsville, Alabama, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Van Phillips, Minor High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 21, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001620.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001620.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 22, 2000, by Carle Place School District, Carle Place, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce Ettenberg, Carle
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001621.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001621.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Cerebral Palsy failed to file an appeal of the November 23, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Cerebral Palsy's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Cerebral Palsy Center School, Belleville, New Jersey on March 2, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rose Kline, Cerebral Palsy Center School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 2,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001622.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001622.txt
  • Carrier Bureau Letter from Leonard A. Gereau, Franklin County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -1622 00-1622 - œ � - -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001624.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001624.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2000, by Northboro Public Schools, Northboro, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lincoln D. Lynch, III, Northboro Public Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001718.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001718.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Carmichaels Area School District, Carmichaels, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Vincent M. Belczyk, Carmichaels
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001719.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001719.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 24, 2000, by Caroline County School District, Bowling Green, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative, Co., to Clota D. Gerhardt, Jr.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001720.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001720.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Carteret Public Schools, Carteret, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert J. Eckert, Carteret
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001721.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001721.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 18, 2000, by City of Boston, Department of Neighborhood Development, Boston, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Deborah
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001722.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001722.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 8, 2000, by Columbia Borough School District, Columbia, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Laura E. McGill, Columbia Borough School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001723.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001723.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Homer-Center School District, Homer City, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Beverly N. Bettinazzi, Homer
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001724.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001724.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Lakeville School District, Lakeville, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lonnie Smith, Lakeville School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001725.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001725.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Learning Community Charter School, Jersey City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webebr Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Caryn Rogoff,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001726.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001726.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ringwood failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ringwood's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ringwood Public Schools, Mercer, Oklahoma on April 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Walker, Ringwood Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 7, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001727.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001727.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 16, 2000, by Roxbury Library Association, Roxbury, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Eugene F. Beirne, Roxbury
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001728.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001728.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 23, 2000, by Savanna Elementary School, Savanna, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Angelia Wilson, Savanna Elementary School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001729.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001729.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Seattle Hebrew Academy, Seattle, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Marc Maislen, Seattle Hebrew Academy,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001730.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001730.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by St. Anthony of Padua Catholic School, Greenville, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sister
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001731.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001731.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Vernon Parish's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Vernon Parish's appeal, Vernon Parish may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 25, 2000, by Vernon Parish School Board, Leesville, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Don Gallemore, Vernon Parish School Board, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001732.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001732.txt
  • on information that could have been provided by the applicant at the time the application was filed. We conclude that, on the basis of the forms and supporting documents submitted by Metropolitan, SLD properly denied Metropolitan's request for a Y2K upgrade. The Bureau, therefore, denies Metropolitan's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Metropolitan School District of Pike Township, Indianapolis, Indiana, on November 9, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Koch, Metropolitan School District of Pike Township, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001733.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001733.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Orchard View's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Orchard View's appeal, Orchard View may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 2, 2000 by Orchard View Schools, Muskegon, Michigan, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dr. Shari Peters-Kitchen, Orchard View Schools, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001734.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001734.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Patton failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Patton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by General George S. Patton School District 133, Riverdale, Illinois on May 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Essie M. Harris, General George S. Patton School District 133, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001819.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001819.txt
  • requests for waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted the need for a waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the Commission's rules or SLD's procedures. Because Guadalupe offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies Guadalupe's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 23, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Our Lady of Guadalupe School, Houston, Texas, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Christina Skowronek, Our Lady of Guadalupe School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001820.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001820.txt
  • waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted the need for a waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the Commission's rules or SLD's procedures. Because St. Pius offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies St. Pius's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the March 29, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by St. Pius X High School, Kansas City, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from L. Michael Smithmier, St. Pius X High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001821.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001821.txt
  • requests for waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted the need for a waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the Commission's rules or SLD's procedures. Because Wilmington offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies Wilmington's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 14, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Wilmington CUSD #209-U, Wilmington, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Phifer, Wilmington CUSD #209-U, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001822.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001822.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Children's Home of Burlington County, Newtown, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ronald MacClay, Children's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001823.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001823.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Kerman Unified School District, Kerman, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Teixeira, Kerman Unified
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001856.doc
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Hayward Unified's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Hayward Unified's initial appeal, Hayward Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 2, 2000 by Hayward Unified School District, Hayward, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from James Ogami, Hayward Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001857.doc
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Huron's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Huron City School District, Huron, Ohio, on May 24, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donald Pflieger, Huron City Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 24, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001858.doc
  • appeals pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lake County's Letters of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lake County's initial appeals, Lake County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 4, 2000 by Lake County Schools, Hayward, Florida, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from David Coggshall, Lake County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, Application
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001859.doc
  • before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Maple Valley's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Maple Valley Public School District #4, Tower City, North Dakota, on April 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ron Stahlecker, Maple Valley Public School District #4, to the Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001860.doc
  • SLD issued a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter that granted Orleans/Niagara's funding requests at its requested discount level. Because the Division finds that the errors asserted by Orleans/Niagara in its Letter of Appeal have been corrected by SLD, the Division dismisses Orleans/Niagara's Letter of Appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Orleans/Niagara Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Medina, New York, on November 12, 1999 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clark J. Godshall, Orleans/Niagara Board of Cooperative Educational Services, to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001861.doc
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Wayne's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Wayne Community Schools, Corydon, Iowa, on May, 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Mason, Wayne Community Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 18, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001886.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001886.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Medford's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Medford Township Board of Education, Medford, New Jersey, on May 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Medford Township Board of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001887.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001887.txt
  • administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Merced Union's unfamiliarity or misunderstanding of Commission policies provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.201, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Merced Union High School District, Merced, California on April 6, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry Silva, Merced Union High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 6, 1999 (Letter of Appeal). 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001888.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001888.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Metuchen's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Metuchen School District, Metuchen, New Jersey, on May 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Metuchen School District), to the Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001890.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001890.txt
  • before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies New Prague's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by New Prague School District No. 721, New Prague, Minnesota, on May 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tim Rybak, New Prague School District No. 721, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001891.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001891.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Whiting failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Whiting's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by School City of Whiting, Whiting, Indiana on April 13, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sandra Martinez, School City of Whiting, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001892.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001892.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Whitehall City failed to file an appeal of the September 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Whitehall City's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Whitehall City School District, Whitehall, Ohio on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph R. Schiska, Whitehall City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001909.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001909.txt
  • Council Bluffs' failure to file its application within the Year 1 filing window, the Bureau believes that a waiver of the filing window deadline is warranted. Under these circumstances, we remand Council Bluffs' application to SLD for processing and the issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Council Bluffs Community Schools, Council Bluffs, Iowa, on March 9, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Council Bluffs' application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001910.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001910.txt
  • appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal with respect to those four Funding Commitment Decision Letters. We dismiss as moot Rockdale Independent's Letter of Appeal to the extent it addresses the funding commitment decision (SLD-146830) that SLD resolved in Rockdale Independent's favor. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Rockdale Independent School District, Rockdale, Texas on April 24, 2000, IS DENIED, with respect to SLD-139132, SLD-139138, SLD-152287, SLD-146833, and IS DISMISSED, with respect to SLD-146830. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001918.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 24, 2000, by Community Consolidated School District 93, Carol Stream, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Dart, Community
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001919.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 7, 2000, by Milton Public Library, Milton, Vermont, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Fran Ferro, Milton Public Library,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001923.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001923.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 15, 2000, by Bethlehem Central School District, Delmar, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to McDonald Carlton, Bethlehem
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001924.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001924.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 8, 2000, by Bishop Hannan High School, Scranton, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Christine Anne Royce, Bishop
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001925.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001925.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Catoosa's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 12, 2000, by Catoosa Public Schools, Catoosa, Oklahoma, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001926.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001926.txt
  • the Administrator. Because De Valls Bluff failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss De Valls Bluff's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by De Valls Bluff School District, De Valls Bluff, Arizona on June 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Betty Medford, De Valls Bluff School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001927.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001927.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Duluth failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Duluth's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Duluth School District 709, Duluth, Minnesota on June 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Wayne V. Aune, Duluth School District 709, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001928.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001928.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 9, 2000, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001929.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001929.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Fairfield Township failed to file an appeal of the September 14, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Fairfield Township's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Fairfield Township Public Schools, Bridgeton, New Jersey on April 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pamela A. Gatto, Fairfield Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001930.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001930.txt
  • Because Folsom Cordova failed to file an appeal of the October 5, 1999 and October 12, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Folsom Cordova's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Folsom Cordova Unified School District, Folsom, California on May 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kelly J. Calhoun, Folsom Cordova Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001931.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001931.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 5, 2000, by Franklin Lakes Public Schools, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Edward Sullivan,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001932.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001932.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 30, 2000, Granville Village School, Granville, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Petit, Granville Village School, dated March
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001933.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001933.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 19, 2000, by Oskaloosa School for Christian Instruction, Oskaloosa, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Ron Halma, Oskaloosa School for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001934.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001934.txt
  • applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Our Lady of Grace's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 17, 2000, by Our Lady of Grace School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001935.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001935.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 23, 2000, by Paradise Unified School District, Paradise, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Midge Kenyon, Paradise Unified
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001936.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001936.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Racine failed to file an appeal of the August 17, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Racine's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Racine Unified School District, Racine, Wisconsin on May 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael S. Dingman, Racine Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001937.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001937.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Rockwell-Swaledale failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Rockwell-Swaledale's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Rockwell-Swaledale Community School District, Rockwell, Iowa on June 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Foell, Rockwell-Swaledale Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001938.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001938.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 6, 2000, by Sault Ste. Marie Area Public Schools, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Steve R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001939.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001939.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Smithtown failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Smithtown's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by The Smithtown Library, Smithtown, New York, on June 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Peter Ward, The Smithtown Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001940.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001940.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Solon Springs failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Solon Springs' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Solon Springs School District, Ashland, Wisconsin on June 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David W. Johnson, Solon Springs School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001941.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001941.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Springfield failed to file an appeal of the August 3, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Springfield's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, Massachusetts on April 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Peter J. Negroni, Springfield Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001942.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001942.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Warren County failed to file an appeal of the August 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Warren County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Warren County Vocational School District, Washington, New Jersey on May 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John H. Bolil, Warren County Technical School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002010.doc
  • period after the issuance of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on May 14, 2000, a holiday, Gulfport's May 15, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Gulfport's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Gulfport's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Gulfport School District, Gulfport, Mississippi on June 5, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Weber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terri Burnham, Gulfport School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 5, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002043.doc
  • district. We conclude, however, that these factors should not have precluded Ann Arbor from filing a timely appeal and, accordingly, that Ann Arbor has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Ann Arbor's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 4, 2000, by Ann Arbor Public Schools, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002044.txt
  • as a timely appeal of SLD's letter informing Dolton that its request for telecommunications services did not meet minimum processing standards. Accordingly, we grant Dolton's request for review. We direct SLD to review Dolton's appeal regarding the decision to deny Dolton's request for funding for telecommunications services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Dolton School District 148, Riverdale, Illinois, on March 17, 2000, IS GRANTED as provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002046.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002046.txt
  • not post Jenks' request for services to SLD's website. The contract for which Jenks seeks support, however, did not meet either of the limited exceptions for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Jenks' request for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 2, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Jenks Public Schools, Jenks, Oklahoma, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joyce S. Friske, Jenks Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 2, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002047.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002047.txt
  • enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when the relief requested would be contrary to an applicable statute or rule. Because Richmond offers no further basis for considering its request, the Bureau denies Richmond's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 4, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Richmond County Public Schools, Hamlet, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Suzanne W. Griffin, Richmond County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 4, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002049.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002049.txt
  • the $4,250 monthly charge labeled as ``recurring costs'' was for hardware costs alone. Because SLD incorrectly determined that the funding request from Franklin County was for ineligible services or products, Franklin County's request for review is granted, and SLD is directed to reconsider Franklin County's funding request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 25, 2000, by Franklin County Public Schools, Rocky Mount, Virginia, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leonard A. Gereau, Superintendent, Franklin County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002071.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002071.txt
  • of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding the Commission's rules and procedures and carefully and accurately completing the relevant FCC Forms. The Division, therefore, denies the Hawaii Schools' Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the above-captioned appeals filed by Aikahi Elementary School, Kailua, Hawaii, Enchanted Lake Elementary School, Kailua, Hawaii, Kane'ohe Elementary School, Kaneohe, Hawaii, Keolu Elementary School, Kailua, Hawaii, Niu Valley Intermediate School, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Waikiki Elementary School, Honolulu, Hawaii, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002072.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002072.txt
  • denied requests for waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted a need for waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the schools and libraries program's rules. Because Anderson offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies Anderson's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 28, 2000, Request for Review filed by Anderson Community School Corporation, Anderson, Indiana, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Anderson Community School Corporation of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, CC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002073.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002073.txt
  • issuance of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 4, 2000, a holiday, Corpus Christi's June 5, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Corpus Christi's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Corpus Christi's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Corpus Christi Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas on June 16, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Susan R. Utter, Corpus Christi Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002074.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002074.txt
  • Educational Service bears the burden of carefully reviewing items sent to and received from SLD for errors. Accordingly, we conclude that Educational Service has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Educational Service's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 7, 2000, by Educational Service Unit #6, Milford, Nebraska, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002075.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002075.txt
  • before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Iowa City's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Iowa City Community School District, Iowa City, Iowa, on May 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lane Plugge, Iowa City Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002076.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002076.txt
  • after the issuance of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 11, 2000, a holiday, Newton's June 12, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Newton County's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Newton's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Newton County School District, Decatur, Mississippi on June 27, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bob Strebeck, Newton County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002084.doc
  • initial FCC Form 471 supports Cordova's assertion that its application bore an original signature, the Bureau concludes that SLD erroneously rejected Cordova's application. The Bureau, therefore, grants Cordova's request for review and instructs SLD to process Cordova's application according to its original April 13, 1998 filing date. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Cordova Public Schools, Cordova, Alaska, on March 6, 2000, IS GRANTED and that Cordova's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from LeRoy Key,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002085.doc
  • the requests included support for ineligible entities. Because SLD's denial of Washington DIS's funding requests resulted from SLD's failure to make the requested corrections to Washington DIS's FCC Form 471, the Bureau grants Washington DIS's Request for Review and remands its application to SLD for further processing. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the State of Washington Department of Information Services on June 13, 2000, IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002097.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Penns Grove Carneys Point Regional School District, Penns Grove, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002098.doc
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Vernon Parish's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Vernon Parish's initial appeal, Vernon Parish may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 12, 2000 by Vernon Parish School District, Leesville, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Don S. Gallemore, Vernon Parish School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002181.doc
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Carbondale failed to file an appeal of the April 27, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Carbondale's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carbondale Public Library, Carbondale, Pennsylvania on May 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne Muldoon, Carbondale Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 4, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002182.doc
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Coffee County failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Coffee County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Coffee County Board of Education, Elba, Alabama on June 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rodger Bowden and Golda Donaldson, Coffee County Board of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002183.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 11, 2000, by Spartanburg County School District 6, Spartanburg, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Dr. Robert
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002188.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 19, 2000, by Utica Community Schools, Sterling Heights, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Sharon Petty, Utica Community Schools, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002264.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002264.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Carl Schurz failed to file an appeal of the August 17, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Carl Schurz's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School, Chicago, Illinois on April 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002265.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002265.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 23, 2000, by Central Agency for Jewish Education, Miami, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathie Yuz, Central
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002266.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002266.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 5, 2000, by Clifton Independent School District, Clifton, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Brenda Vrazel, Clifton Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002267.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002267.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colonial failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colonial's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colonial School District, East Concord, New York on June 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R. F. Thompson, Thompson Communications Company, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002268.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002268.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Eastern Plains failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Eastern Plains' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico on July 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Becky Rowley, Clovis community College, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002269.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002269.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Garden Grove failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Garden Grove's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Garden Grove Unified School District, Garden Grove, California on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cung Nguyen, Garden Grove Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002270.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002270.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Judge Memorial Catholic High School, Salt Lake City, Utah, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jane
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002271.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002271.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Kanawha County failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Kanawha County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Kanawha County School District, Charleston, West Virginia on June 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Patrick Law, Kanawha County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002272.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002272.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 18, 2000, by Marion School District 54, Marion, Montana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ron Osborne, Marion School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002273.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002273.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Newburgh failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Newburgh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laval S. Wilson, Newburgh Enlarged City School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002274.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002274.txt
  • Administrator. Because New Castle cannot show that it filed a timely appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Castle's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Castle Community Schools, New Castle, Indiana on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Larry Koby, New Castle Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002275.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002275.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Oscoda failed to file an appeal of the December 1, 1998 and February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Oscoda's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Oscoda Area Schools, Oscoda, Michigan on May 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from W.C. Bill Martin, Oscoda Area Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002276.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002276.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 2, 2000, by Pace School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kai S. Hoke, Pace School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002277.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002277.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: October 6, 2000 Released: October 10, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 20, 1999, by Pinckneyville District #50, Pinckneyville, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim O'Leary, Pinckneyville District #50,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002278.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002278.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 2000, by Racine Unified School District of Racine, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael S. Dingman,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002279.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Saint Andrew failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Saint Andrew's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Saint Andrew School, Chicago, Illinois on June 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jack Percival, Saint Andrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002280.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002280.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because San Juan failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss San Juan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by San Juan Unified School District, Carmichael, California on May 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tim McCarty, San Juan Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002281.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002281.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Scotch Plains failed to file appeals of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decisions dismissing Scotch Plains' appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, Scotch Plains, New Jersey on May 30, 2000, and May 31, 2000, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donald L. Williams, Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002403.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002403.txt
  • seek discounts.'' Bancroft prematurely filed its FCC Form 471, and should not have requested support for that contracted service until March 9, 1999. Therefore, we find no merit in Bancroft's appeal. Again, for the program to run efficiently, it is critical that applicants follow the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 9, 2000, by Bancroft-Rosalie Community Schools, Bancroft, Nebraska, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Jon Cerny, Bancroft Rosalie Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 9, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002496.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002496.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Arvin Brown's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Arvin Brown's initial appeal, Arvin Brown may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on August 8, 2000 by Arvin A. Brown Library, Richford, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Annette Goyne, Arvin A. Brown Library, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002497.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002497.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ballinger failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ballinger's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ballinger I.S.D., Ballinger, Texas on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laura Strube, Ballinger I.S.D., to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002498.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002498.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Big Rapids failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Big Rapids' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Big Rapids Public Schools, Big Rapids, Michigan on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph A. Bouman, Big Rapids Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002499.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002499.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Caledonia North failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Caledonia North's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Caledonia North Supervisory Union, Lyndonville, Vermont on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ann Riggie, Caledonia North Supervisory Union, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002500.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002500.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Douglas failed to file an appeal of the February 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Douglas' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Douglas Public Library, Douglas, Arizona on July 21, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Glenda Bavier, Douglas Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 21, 1999 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002501.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002501.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: November 7, 2000 Released: November 8, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002502.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002502.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Elgin failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Elgin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Elgin Independent School District 16, Elgin, Oklahoma on August 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Doris Wilson, Elgin Independent School District 16, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002503.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002503.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Holy Family failed to file an appeal of the June 6, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Holy Family's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Holy Family School, Sioux City, Iowa on August 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cindy Spenner, Holy Family School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002504.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002504.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the April 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Jefferson County School District, Fayette, Mississippi on July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John E. Dickey, Jefferson County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002505.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002505.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the September 14, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by The Jefferson School, Jefferson, Maryland on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul Thewsuvat, The Jefferson School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002506.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002506.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Granite failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Granite's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Granite School District, Salt Lake City, Utah on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. James Henderson, Granite School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002507.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002507.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 10, 2000, by Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, Nebraska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Steinberger, Lexington Public Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002508.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002508.txt
  • issuance of the June 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a weekend, Mt. Diablo's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Mt. Diablo's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Mt. Diablo's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Perry W. Polk, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002509.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002509.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 15, 2000, by Oregon Trail School District, Sandy, Oregon, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Miriam Mann, Oregon Trail
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002510.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002510.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southeastern failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southeastern's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio on August 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert L. Lindsey, Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002511.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002511.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southwick-Tolland failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southwick-Tolland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, Southwick, Massachusetts on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul R. Petit, Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002512.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002512.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Anthony failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Anthony's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Anthony School, New York, New York on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tess A. Alviar, St. Anthony School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 21,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002513.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002513.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Rita failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Rita's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Rita School, New Orleans, Louisiana on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Annette Baxley, St. Rita School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002514.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002514.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 30, 2000, by Yeshiva Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Green, Yeshiva Schools, dated July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002531.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002531.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Austin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Austin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Austin Public School 492, Austin, Minnesota on July 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lori Volz, Austin Public School 492, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 27, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002532.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002532.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a holiday, Bloomfield's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Bloomfield's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Bloomfield's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bloomfield Public Library, Bloomfield, Iowa on July 18, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Regina Gooden, Bloomfield Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 18, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002533.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002533.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Cumberland failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Cumberland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Cumberland County School District, Burkesville, Kentucky on July 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robin Sharp, Cumberland County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002534.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002534.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Joel Pate,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002535.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002535.txt
  • Because Florence Carlton failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 and May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence Carlton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence Carlton School District 15-6, Florence, Montana on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Elaine Huseby, Florence Carlton School District 15-6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002536.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002536.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Florence failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence City School District, Florence, Alabama on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Edison D. Barney, Florence City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 19,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002537.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002537.txt
  • Lincoln has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lincoln's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lincoln's initial appeal, Lincoln may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 8, 2000 by Lincoln School District 156, Calumet City, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dr. Kenneth Jandes, Lincoln School District 156, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002538.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002538.txt
  • issuance of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 9, 2000, a holiday, Moon Area's July 10, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Moon Area's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Moon Area's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Moon Area School District, Moon Township, Pennsylvania on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel H. Vogel, Moon Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002539.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002539.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Attleborough failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Attleborough's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Attleborough School District, North Attleborough, Massachusetts on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland Denault, North Attleborough School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002540.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002540.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gildford failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gildford's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Gildford School, Gildford, Montana on June 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Stahl, North Gildford School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 19, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002541.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002541.txt
  • the issuance of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 30, 2000, a weekend, Roosevelt Elementary's July 31, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Roosevelt Elementary's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Roosevelt's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, Phoenix, Arizona on August 22, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Harris, Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002542.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002542.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Simpson County's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Simpson County's initial appeal, Simpson County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 23, 2000 by Simpson County School District, Mendenhall, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kay Berry, Simpson County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002543.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002543.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because South Heart failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss South Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by South Heart School, South Heart, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paula Lengowski, South Heart School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002544.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002544.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Peter & Paul failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Peter & Paul's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by SS. Peter & Paul School, Cary, Illinois on July 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Katrina Lamkin, SS. Peter & Paul School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002545.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002545.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Patrick failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Patrick's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Patrick's School, Dickinson, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brenda L. Selinger, St. Patrick's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002546.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002546.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Swift River failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Swift River's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Swift River Elementary School, New Salem, Massachusetts on July 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol S. Holzberg, Swift River Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002547.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002547.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Vacaville failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Vacaville's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Vacaville Unified School District, Vacaville, California on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry D. Beckham, Vacaville Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002548.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002548.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because AECSD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss AECSD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Auburn Enlarged City School District, Fairport, New York on July 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Matthew Crider, ECC Technologies, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002550.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002550.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colton failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colton Joint Unified School District, Upland, California on September 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Kendrick, Colton Joint Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002551.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002551.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 11, 2000, a holiday, Durham's May 12, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Durham's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Durham's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Durham Unified School District, Durham, California on July 11, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Christy R. Patterson, Durham Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002552.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002552.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Elko County School District, Elko, Nevada, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William McLeod, Elko County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002553.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002553.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Girard failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Girard's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Girard City School District, Girard, Ohio on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anthony D. Ambrosio, Girard City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 24,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002554.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002554.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because McIntosh failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss McIntosh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by McIntosh County Schools, Darien, Georgia on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Debby Richardson, McIntosh County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002555.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002555.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, Hayti, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lawrence L. Furney,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002556.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002556.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ryan failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ryan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ryan Public School, Ryan, Oklahoma on August 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don A. Bogard, Ryan Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 23, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002557.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002557.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 11, 2000, by Traverse City Area Public Schools, Traverse City, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary P.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002558.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002558.txt
  • period after the issuance of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 6, 2000, a holiday, Xavier's August 7, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Xavier's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Xavier's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Xavier High School, Cedar Rapids, Iowa on August 29, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Henderson, Xavier High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002559.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002559.txt
  • the Administrator. Because ESU No. 6 failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ESU No. 6's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Educational Service Unit No. 06, Omaha, Nebraska on August 30, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Ferneding, Educational Service Unit No. 06, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002574.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002574.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Eatonville's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Eatonville School District, Eatonville, Washington, on May 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Raymond F. Arment, III, Eatonville School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002575.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002575.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Delta/Greely failed to file an appeal of the February 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Delta/Greely's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Delta/Greely School District, Delta Junction, Alaska on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Johnson, Delta/Greely School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 22, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002629.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002629.txt
  • to the standards for permissible SPIN changes in the Copan Order, we remand these Letters of Appeal to the Administrator for reconsideration pursuant to the Commission's revised SPIN change policy. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letters of Appeal filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A LIST OF APPEALS REMANDED Application Number Applicant 127441 Baldwin County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002630.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002630.txt
  • program rules and procedures. The program's rules state repeatedly that universal service funds support only eligible services. Anderson should have been aware that it was seeking discounts for ineligible internal connections. We conclude SLD appropriately applied its 30 percent policy based upon the facts of this case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed May 30, 2000, by Anderson School, Staatsburg, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau In the Matter of Request for Review by Anderson School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002631.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002631.txt
  • stated that the lesser quotes were for ``the remaining schools,'' implying that these were separate quotes. Because SLD incorrectly determined that the funding request from Winterset was for ineligible services or products, Winterset's request for review is granted, and SLD is directed to reconsider Winterset's funding request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Winterset Community School District, Winterset, Iowa, IS GRANTED to the extent stated herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ivan T. Webber, on behalf of Winterset School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002642.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002642.txt
  • an ``inquiry,'' rather than an appeal. Because Houston Independent filed the letter within 30 days of SLD's June 16, 2000, Funding Commitment Decision Letter, it was timely filed. Accordingly, we grant in part Houston Independent's Letters of Appeal and direct SLD to review Houston Independent's initial appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas on August 18, 2000 and August 21, 2000, ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daryl Ann Borel, Houston Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002650.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002650.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bryn Athyn failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bryn Athyn's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bryn Athyn Church School, Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania on September 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melodie Greer, Bryn Athyn Church School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002651.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002651.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because EDmin failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss EDmin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by EDmin Open Systems, Inc., San Diego, California on September 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Shorts, EDmin Open Systems, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 26,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002652.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002652.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 8, 2000, by James Ward Elementary School, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Kline, James Ward
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002653.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002653.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Madera failed to file an appeal of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Madera's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Madera Unified School District, Madera, California on September 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Imrie, Madera Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002654.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002654.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 11, 2000, by Norwell Public Schools, Norwell, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard F. Sulc, Norwell Public
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002655.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002655.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Richland Colfax failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Richland Colfax's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Richland Colfax No. 1, Richland, Nebraska on September 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judith Kabourek, Richland Colfax No. 1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 6, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002656.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002656.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Rosa failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Rosa's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, Santa Rosa, New Mexico on September 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel Flores, Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002657.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002657.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ynez failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ynez's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District, Santa Ynez, California on September 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Fred Van Leuven, Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002658.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002658.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 28, 2000, by Saint John Bosco High School, Bellflower, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Stover, Saint
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002659.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002659.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 23, 2000, by South Brunswick Township School District, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lester
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002660.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002660.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 2, 2000, by Westbrook High School, Westbrook, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert Vale, Westbrook High School,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002699.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002699.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Northwestern's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on September 15, 2000, by Northwestern School District 56-3, Mellette, South Dakota, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002700.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002700.txt
  • after the issuance of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters fell on August 27, 2000, a holiday, Western Heights' August 28, 2000 appeals should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Western Heights' appeals and direct SLD to review Western Heights' appeals to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Western Heights School District I-41, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on September 28, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Western Heights School District I-41, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002701.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002701.txt
  • contravenes the Commission's policy that applicants shall not be permitted to amend completed FCC Forms 471 to remove ineligible service requests after the closure of the filing window deadline. If applicants were permitted to make such corrections, SLD and the Commission would face significant additional administrative burdens. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 28, 2000 by Free Library of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from H.E. Broadbent, Free Library of Philadelphia, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed, March 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002722.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002722.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies YCS' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Youth Consultation Services, Newark, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kathleen M. Bravo, Youth Consultation Service, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002784.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002784.txt
  • appeal concerning the other application, stating that ``[y]our appeal has been granted because it is not clear who was contacted initially for the missing documentation. . . .'' Because these two decisions based on the same circumstances are inconsistent, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Chichester School District, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania on May 10, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chichester's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002806.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002806.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Caddo Independent School District 5, Caddo, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Caddo's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002807.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002807.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Canute Independent School District 11, Canute, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Canute's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002808.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002808.txt
  • of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 20, 2000, a holiday, Soille San Diego's August 21, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Soille San Diego's appeal and direct SLD to review Soille San Diego's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California on September 15, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002818.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002818.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 6, 2000, by Lyman School District No. 42-1, Presho, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce Carrier,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002841.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002841.txt
  • requirement. The critical issue is when Sackets Harbor signed a contract with the service provider, not when it mailed the Form 471. Based on the record before us, Sackets Harbor signed a contract before anyone ever had an opportunity to submit a competitive bid for the project. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Sackets Harbor Central School District, Sackets Harbor, New York on May 5, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne B. Spaziani, Sackets Harbor Central School District 56, to Office of the Secretary, FCC, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002908.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002908.txt
  • a decision by the Universal Service Administrator to withhold funds allegedly due and payable to Ames under the schools and libraries support mechanisms. On July 31, 2000, Ames filed a Motion to Withdraw its appeal. The Division grants Ames' Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Ames' appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by the Ames Business & Learning Environments, Inc., Chandler, Arizona on July 31, 2000 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002909.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002909.txt
  • funding implementation deadline for the schools and libraries support mechanism so that it can receive the full amount of funding that it requested. Our review of the record, however, finds that Franklin has received all funds requested. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Franklin's Letter of Appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Franklin County School District, Carnesville, Georgia on December 30, 1999 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alicia A. Frey, Franklin County Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00028.doc
  • the Schools and Libraries Division IS EXTENDED BY sixty days from the original ninety-day deadline. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -28 00-28 ô õ J V
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00100.doc
  • with paragraph 6 above within 30 days of the release date of this Order. We direct SLD to consider the submitted documentation and act in accordance with this Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letter of Appeal filed on September 17, 1999, by Copan Public Schools of Copan, Oklahoma IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Letter from Delbert W. Moreland, Jr. Superintendent, Copan Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission (filed Sept. 17, 1999) (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00167.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00167.txt
  • Accordingly, we grant the requests for review and remand those applications to SLD for further processing. Circumstances Do Not Warrant a Waiver of Our Competitive Bidding requirements. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.504, 54.511, 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504, 54.511, 54.719 and 54.722, that the November 24, 1999, December 16, 1999, and January 13, 2000, Letters of Appeal filed by MasterMind Internet Services, Inc., ARE DENIED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART FOR FURTHER PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Request for Review of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010024.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Columbia failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Columbia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Columbia Public Library, Columbia, Pennsylvania on October 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert V. McCarthy, Columbia Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010025.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010025.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 10, 2000, by Lake Havasu Unified School District, Lake Havasu City, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Barbara
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010026.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010026.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lakeview failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lakeview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lakeview Community Schools, Columbus, Nebraska on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kurt Harrison, Lakeview Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010027.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010027.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Matawan-Aberdeen failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Matawan-Aberdeen's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, Matawan, New Jersey on November 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland R. Pare, Ed.D, Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010028.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010028.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 17, 2000, by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Perry W. Polk,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010029.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 16, 2000, by New Brighton Area School District, New Brighton, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce P.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010030.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010030.txt
  • the Administrator. Because New Hampshire School failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Hampshire School's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53, Pembroke, New Hampshire on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary I. Rubega, New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010031.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010031.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 30, 2000, by Newport Public School District, Newport, Rhode Island, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Alan Kritz, Newport
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010032.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010032.txt
  • Sanger has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sanger's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sanger's initial appeal, Sanger may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Sanger Unified School District, Sanger, California, on October 23, 2000, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kim Jacobsen, Sanger Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010033.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010033.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ana failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ana's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on October 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010034.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010034.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Tuckahoe Union failed to file an appeal of the September 15, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Tuckahoe Union's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tuckahoe Union Free School District, Eastchester, New York on October 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael V. Yazurlo, Ed.D, Tuckahoe Union Free School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010044.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Austin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Austin Independent School District, Austin, Texas, on May 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pascal D. Forgione, Austin Independent School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 12, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010045.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010045.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Baldwin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Baldwin Public Library, Baldwin, New York, on May 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Hopkins, Baldwin Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 31, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010046.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010046.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Lakeside's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Lakeside Youth Services, Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania, on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Lakeside Youth Services), to the Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010047.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010047.txt
  • Harbor's request for services to SLD's website. The contracts for which Oak Harbor seeks support, however, do not meet either of the limited exceptions for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Oak Harbor's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 13, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Oak Harbor School District No. 201, Oak Harbor, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce E. Worley, Oak Harbor School District No. 201, to the Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010048.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010048.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Wells' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Wells Public Library, Wells, Maine, on June 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sandra Broomfield, Wells Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed June 9, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010065.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010065.txt
  • applicants provide accurate information regarding funding requests. The Administrator must be able to reasonably estimate the total demand for support submitted by applicants during each filing period in order to make determinations regarding the availability of funding. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly denied Carl Schurz's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School on May 23, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 23, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010145.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010145.txt
  • Colchester has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Colchester's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Colchester's initial appeal, Colchester may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colchester School District, Colchester, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from John C. Gifford, Colchester School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 13, 2000.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010146.txt
  • other priorities. These arguments do not rise to the level of good cause necessary to justify waiving our rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Newburgh has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Newburgh's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on July 10, 2000, by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010147.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010147.txt
  • 10, 1997 and June 5, 1998. None of these requests were subject to existing, binding agreements as defined by the Commission's rules for Year 2 and were thus subject to the competitive bidding requirement. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Raytown's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 14, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Raytown Quality Schools, Raytown, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R.G. Kirby, Raytown Quality Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010148.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010148.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 9, 2000, by Sutton School, CNSU, Lyndonville, Vermont, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary Ann Riggie, Sutton School,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010175.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010175.txt
  • the burden of carefully reviewing all documents sent to and received from SLD for accuracy. Accordingly, we conclude that East Side Union has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny East Side Union's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 11, 2000, by East Side Union High School District, San Jose, California, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010200.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010200.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Atlantic County failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Atlantic County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Atlantic County Library System, Mays Landing, New Jersey on December 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alyce J. Bowers, Atlantic County Library System, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010201.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010201.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Clearview failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Clearview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Clearview Local School District, Lorain, Ohio on December 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kent R. Zeman, Clearview Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010202.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 12, 2000, by Granville Public Schools, Granville, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Judith Ann Deutsch, Granville
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010203.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010203.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: January 26, 2001 Released: January 29, 2001 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 20, 2000, by Leon County Schools, Tallahassee, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William D. Piotrowski, Leon County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010204.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010204.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 28, 2000, by Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Winston E.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010205.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010205.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 13, 2000, by Pluralistic School, Santa Monica, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathleen Lenihan, Pluralistic School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010206.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010206.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Solon failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Solon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Solon City Schools, Solon, Ohio on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kirk B. Miller, Solon City Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010207.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010207.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because neither Scanlon or MetroCon filed an appeal of the February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss MetroCon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by MetroCon Communications, New York, New York on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Al Garcia, MetroCon Communications, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010212.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010212.txt
  • (internal connections) being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand NAFC's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider NAFC's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by NAFC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on November 1, 1999 to reconsider the dismissal of the Appeal it filed on April 26, 2000 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Appeal filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010213.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010213.txt
  • that the SLD correctly determined that only 72 of Soille's students were eligible for the national school lunch program under the federal income eligibility guidelines. Thus, SLD properly found Soille eligible for a 50 percent discount for internal connections, and we find no merit in Solle's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 9, 2000 by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010285.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010285.txt
  • specify what additional information was required for the application. We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the record does not show that SLD adequately communicated the nature of the requested information to St. Stanislaus. Accordingly, we remand St. Stanislaus' application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the St. Stanislaus Kostka School, Chicago, Illinois on May 15, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review St. Stanislaus' funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010314.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010314.txt
  • applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Given Yeshiva's failure to certify the Form 471 subsequent to the required posting period, SLD properly denied the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, Brooklyn, New York, filed April 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alter Obermeister, Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 11, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010315.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010315.txt
  • was for tariffed services, such services must be re-bid every year because they do not fall under the limited exemptions from competitive bidding. Therefore, because Thomas Crane did not seek competitive bids for Funding Year 2, we find that SLD correctly denied Thomas Crane's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 10, 2000 Request for Review filed by Thomas Crane Public Library, Quincy, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jody Parsley, Thomas Crane Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010316.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010316.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Ashby's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 4, 2001, by Ashby Public Schools, Ashby, Minnesota IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Renee Melby, Ashby Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 4, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010317.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010317.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 1, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010318.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010318.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 13, 2000, by Daingerfield-Lone Star Independent School District, Daingerfield, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard Woods, Daingerfield-Lone
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010319.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010319.txt
  • as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because Hawthorn failed to timely appeal the April 14, 2000 decision to either the Commission or SLD, the Requests for Review will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed November 17, 2000, and December 4, 2000, by Hawthorn School District 73 District, Hawthorn, Illinois, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010320.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010320.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 7, 1999, by Peach Public Libraries, Fort Valley, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Billy Tripp, Peach Public
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010321.doc
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Windham failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Windham's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Windham Public Schools, Windham, Connecticut on January 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Millie C. Wheeler, Windham Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 3, 2001 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010324.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010324.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 22, 2000, by Half Hollow Hills School District, Dix Hills, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Charles
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010350.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010350.txt
  • In other instances where SLD has failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Adams Twelve's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, Northglenn, Colorado, on April 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Adams Twelve's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010351.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010351.txt
  • Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we cannot permit Cheney to amend its FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 16, 2000, by Cheney Public Schools, Cheney, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau In the Matter of Request for Review by Cheney School District No. 360, filed May 16, 2000 (Request for Review). See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010352.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010352.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Flour Bluff Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, April 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Darrell Earwood, Flour Bluff Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010353.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010353.txt
  • and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Pioneerland's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Pioneerland's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by Pioneerland. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), section 1.113 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.113, IS WAIVED to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Pioneerland Library System, Willmar, Minnesota, on June 25, 1999,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010355.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Dietrich failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Dietrich's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dietrich School District No. 314, Dietrich, Idaho on January 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Peter M. Bolz, Sr., Dietrich School District No. 314, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010356.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010356.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Grant County failed to file an appeal of the August 31, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Grant County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Grant County Education Service District, Canyon City, Oregon on May 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Coffey, Grant County Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010357.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010357.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Highway Christian's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Highway Christian's initial request, Highway Christian may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Highway Christian Academy, New York City, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Darren Page, Highway Christian Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010358.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010358.txt
  • the Administrator. Because St. Pius V failed to file an appeal of the October 5, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Pius V's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Pius V Parish School, Jacksonville, Florida on January 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elise Kennedy, St. Pius V Parish School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010373.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010373.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because USD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss USD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Unified School District #214, Ulysses, Kansas on February 5, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joe Breeden, Unified School District #214, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 5, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010387.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010387.txt
  • Request For Proposal (RFP) for the original services. Accordingly, we conclude that LAUSD's request for a service change should be considered by SLD in accordance with this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and the Commission's rules, sections 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, 47 U.S.C. §§ 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Guidance by the Universal Service Administrative Company concerning the Request of Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, filed on February 9, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau USAC Letter from D. Scott Barash to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010411.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010411.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Acadia Parish's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Acadia Parish's use of its remote access router to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Acadia Parish School Board 5, Crowley, Louisiana, on May 26, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Acadia Parish's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010412.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010412.txt
  • for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Antioch seeks support for tariffed services and for contracts entered into in April and July of 1999. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Antioch's requests for support. The Division, therefore, denies Antioch's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Antioch Unified School District, Antioch, California, on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael Gudjohnsen, Director of Purchasing, Antioch Unified School District Purchasing Department, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010420.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010420.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Buffalo and Erie's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts, and consequently, whether maintenance and memory upgrades of such routers are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie County Public Library on May 19, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Buffalo's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010433.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010433.txt
  • only asserts that service will commence on or after the date of the letter. Consequently, we find Livingston Parish's argument unpersuasive and in the absence of other evidence in the record we find that the Applicant violated the 28-day waiting period with regard to the Com-Net vendor. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Livingston Parish School District, Livingston Louisiana, on May 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Rogers Pope, Livingston Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 26,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010434.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010434.txt
  • 471 were rejected as untimely because of the server failure. In accordance with that Order, SLD has notified the above-captioned applicants individually that it would consider their late-filed applications as having been filed inside the filing window. Therefore, the Division dismisses these Requests for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the above-captioned Requests for Waiver are DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sara Ginsberg, Chabad Academy of Myrtle Beach, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed July 3, 2000; Letter from Beverly I. White, Greenville County School District, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010435.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010435.txt
  • that comprise a single school would generally be considered internal connections rather than part of a WAN. Nothing in the record before us indicates whether the other building is an instructional building comprising part of the same school. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Solomon Schechter School of Greater Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, on May 4, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Solomon Schechter's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010463.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010463.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Los Angeles Unified's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Los Angeles Unified's initial request, Los Angeles Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Catherine Banker, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 13, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010464.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010464.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 19, 2000, by Salem County Vocational Technical Schools, Woodstown, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Esther R. Pennell,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010506.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010506.txt
  • and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. For that reason, Petersburg's Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petersburg City Public Schools, dated June 6, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Herbert H. Morris, Petersburg Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 6, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010516.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010516.txt
  • substantially complete.'' Upon review of the record in each of the Requests for Review, we conclude that each presents circumstances factually similar to those in Naperville and meets the standards articulated in Naperville. Accordingly, we remand the applications to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul A. Mulder, Allendale Public Schools, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010523.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010523.txt
  • rule. Caribou's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Caribou from having to comply with our policies regarding ineligible services. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Caribou School District, Caribou, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn McNeal, Caribou Regional School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 18, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010524.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010524.txt
  • funded. Given the volume of applications that SLD reviews every year, it is critical that applicants follow instructions and seek support only for eligible services, so that the program can effectively target funds to those services that can be supported. Ultimately, this benefits deserving schools and libraries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 7, 2000, Request for Review filed by Maine School Administrative District #49, Fairfield, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Maine School Administrative District #49 of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010525.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010525.txt
  • Because ineligible equipment constituted more than thirty percent of St. Landry's original funding request, and in light of the prohibition against allowing applicants to amend their applications once the filing window has closed, we affirm SLD's decision to reject St. Landry's funding request in its entirety. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 28, 2000, by St. Landry Parish School District, Opelousas, Louisiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lanny Moreau, St. Landry Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010585.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010585.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. Allowing applicants who fail to follow program rules to amend their applications prejudices other applicants who properly completed their applications and sought only eligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 12, 1999, by Caddo Parish School Board, Shreveport, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010586.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010586.txt
  • employees, grounds/maintenance workers, and food service/warehouse workers, which are clearly ineligible for funding under the program rules because they fail to serve an educational purpose. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, deny Rockwood's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 12, 2000, by Rockwood School District R 6, Eureka, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Wester, Rockwood School District R 6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010587.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010587.txt
  • failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Springfield's application to SLD for further consideration under applicable program rules and policies. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 18, 2000 by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Springfield's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010588.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010588.txt
  • Heights' Request for Review seeking to use this method must be denied. In addition, we reject Western Heights' assertion that this appeal raises a novel issue of policy which must be considered by the full Commission, because as noted above, the Commission has already addressed the issue. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Western Heights School District, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on July 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request For Review by John D. Harrington, Funds for Learning, on behalf of Western Heights School District, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010648.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010648.txt
  • in its application, we find that the ineligible services requested in FRN 264664 totals less than 30 percent of the total request. We therefore remand Boston Public Library's application to SLD for further consideration and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library, Boston, Massachusetts, on June 5, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent described herein, and is otherwise DENIED. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010649.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010649.txt
  • to require an applicant to be responsible for providing sufficient information in its FCC Form 471 to enable SLD to determine whether the requested services are eligible. In the absence of such information, we believe that SLD was justified in concluding that this request should be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library on May 30, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as discussed herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010650.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010650.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie I directly applies and on remand, SLD should review the capabilities and actual use of the Cisco 2501 routers in question to determine whether these routers are discount eligible and consequently, whether the requested operating system and memory upgrades are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie Public Library on July 11, 2000 is GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010652.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010652.txt
  • and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. We therefore deny Paducah's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 7, 2000, by Paducah Public Schools, Paducah, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Nelson, Paducah Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for Review). Letter from Schools
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010653.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010653.txt
  • administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service funds to eligible services only. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 12, 2000 Request for Review filed by Pike County School District, Troy, Alabama, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sherry A. Key and Dr. John R. Key, Pike County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010654.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010654.txt
  • requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, affirm SLD's decision to deny Portland's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Portland Public Schools, Portland, Oregon, on February 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Chris Bronsema, Portland Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2000 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010655.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010655.txt
  • otherwise been entitled, and because there is no evidence in SLD's records that Visitation attempted to correct this error at any time prior to approval, we conclude that SLD correctly affirmed its funding commitment based on the total pre-discount cost reported in the applicant's FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Visitation Academy, dated May 24, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John H. Leaman, Visitation Academy, Bay City, Michigan, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 24, 2000 (Request for Review). Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010736.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010736.txt
  • service provider taking part in the bidding process, SLD reasonably determined that the Commission's competitive bidding rules were violated under the precedent established in Mastermind. Therefore, SLD properly removed the relevant Forms 470 off its web-site and denied the funding requests in the associated Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by A. R. Carethers SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Applegate Adventist Academy on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Berean SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010773.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010773.txt
  • 471 filing deadline. The record shows that Audrey Pack complied with the program's requirements in providing additional information to SLD on December 13, 2000. Thus, the untimely posting of the FCC Form 470 is not attributable to Audrey Pack. We therefore grant Audrey Pack's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Audrey Pack Memorial Library, Spring City, Tennessee on July 3, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process Audrey Pack's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010774.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010774.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Bibb's request to change service providers. On March 12, 2001, Bibb filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Bibb's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Bibb's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Bibb County Board of Education, Centreville, Alabama, on March 12, 2001 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010775.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010775.txt
  • that includes both eligible and ineligible products. Given Commission rules and precedent, SLD properly denied Fairfax's entire funding request. Therefore, SLD clearly has authority, under these limited circumstances, to deny funding requests that include both eligible and ineligible services, and we reject Fairfax's claims to the contrary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 22, 2000 by Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Fairfax County Public Library, of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010776.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010776.txt
  • also emphasized that ``your response on [the Item 22 Review] worksheets should represent the total of all of the resources available in all of the eligible entities covered by your request.'' Because CMCC failed to comply with these clear directives, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Central Minnesota Computing Center, filed October 13, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael T. Bauer, Central Minnesota Computer Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 13, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010777.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010777.txt
  • additional administrative burdens. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We therefore deny St. John's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John the Baptist School, Petersburg, Nebraska on May 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Reicks, St. John the Baptist School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010778.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010778.txt
  • of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). The Commission's rules provide that requests for review of decisions issued by the Administrator shall be considered and acted upon by the Common Carrier Bureau, except that requests which raise novel questions of fact, law or policy shall be considered by the full Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). Request for Review by Copan 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-26231, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, 15 FCC Rcd 5498, ¶ 1 (rel. 2000) (Copan Order). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services Requested and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010793.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010793.txt
  • Therefore, we disagree with SLD's assessment that well over 30 % of the funding request is ineligible under program rules. Accordingly, we grant Chelmsford's request for review and remand its application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider this FRN consistent with program rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 22, 2000, by Chelmsford Public School District, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and remanded to the Schools and Libraries Division. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chelmsford's funding application and to issue a revised
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010794.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010794.txt
  • only $18,000. The information provided by CVA indicates that CVA's available technological and budgetary resources were inadequate, thus CVA failed to demonstrate that it possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny CVA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 26, 2000, by the Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Monte Nardy, Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed October 26, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010795.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010795.txt
  • to post them to its web site in a timely manner causing the waiting period to extend past the filing window deadline. In this instance, however, Henderson's defective Form 470, not SLD, caused the posting delay. Therefore, a waiver of the Commission's rules is not warranted. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Country Library System, Watertown, New York, on behalf of Henderson Free Library, Henderson, New York, on June 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Yvonne Reff, North Country
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010796.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010796.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Little Miami failed to file an appeal of the August 10, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Little Miami's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Little Miami Local School District, Morrow, Ohio on May 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Long, Little Miami Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010797.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010797.txt
  • it assigned a ``$0'' amount to the ``[i]nstallation of telephone wiring'' identified in an attachment to its FCC Form 471. Manhasset's application supports SLD's determination that wiring costs included in Manhattan's FCC Form 471 are attributable to an ineligible product rather than to eligible telephone wiring. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2000, by Manhasset Union Free School District, Westbury, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010798.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010798.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Here, New Albany's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, New Albany, Indiana, on May 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dennis A. Cahill, New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010833.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010833.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Hood River's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Hood River's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hood River County School District on May 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Hood River's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010834.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010834.txt
  • pursuant to existing, binding contracts. Accordingly, SLD posted those services on its website for competitive bidding. Mobile did not wait 28 days before renewing an agreement with a service provider, and did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. The Division, therefore, denies Mobile's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mobile County Public School System, Mobile, Alabama, on August 3, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Margaret Blake, Mobile County Public School System, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010852.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010852.txt
  • than five times as many computer ports as available computers. We find that neither BTCS nor Total Communications USA demonstrated to SLD that BTCS possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny BTCS's request for review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bethlehem Temple Christian School, Duquesne, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Benjamin J. Aron, Schwaninger & Associates, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8, 1999 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010853.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010853.txt
  • have the necessary resources to make effective use of the services and connections it requested. Therefore, we find no merit in Laurel Hall's argument to the contrary. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on January 14, 2000 by the Laurel Hall School, Hagerstown, Maryland, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of Benjamin J. Aron, Counsel, Laurel Hall School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010854.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010854.txt
  • contracts for bidding, we must reject Mercer County's argument that this form has satisfied its competitive bidding obligations on the relevant requests. Instead, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Mercer County for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County School District on June 7, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Mercer County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010855.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010855.txt
  • as a waiver of the 30-day rule, because SLD has no authority to make such a waiver. Since Mass. DOE is not entitled to relief even when the merits are considered, we need not decide whether it would be appropriate to grant a waiver of section 54.720. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 5, 2000 by Massachusetts Department of Education, Malden, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Fuller, Massachusetts Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 5, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010873.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010873.txt
  • governing the calculation of discount rates. As in Hamilton County School Board, SLD has properly applied the Commission's rules and the program's procedures. These applicants' challenge to the fairness of the rules is properly initiated by filing a petition for rulemaking, rather than a Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Calhoun County School District on August 10, 2000; by Craig City School District on May 17, 2000; by Holmes County School District on May 8, 2000; by Jackson County School Board on May 12, 2000; by Lake County Schools on June 19,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010876.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010876.txt
  • average discount method described in Hamilton's Request for Review for those discounts. The method described in Hamilton's Request for Review applies only for services shared by multiple schools and only those schools sharing the services-as opposed to all schools in the school district-are included in that calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Hamilton County School Board, Jasper, Florida, on May 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Parks, Hamilton County School Board, filed May 9, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c) of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010877.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010877.txt
  • funding request. Given the phrasing of SLD's request for information on individual hardware costs, we conclude that it was reasonable for Kerman to interpret SLD's inquiry as not requesting information relating to other costs, such as labor. Accordingly, we remand Kerman's application to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 12, 2000, by Kerman Unified School District, Kerman, California, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Library Division to review Kerman's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010891.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010891.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 29, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010892.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010892.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 14, 2001, by Rome City School District, Rome, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to David Smith, Rome City
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010918.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010918.txt
  • which components of the Dukane SmartSystem were deemed ineligible for funding by SLD. Accordingly, we cannot ascertain whether the 30 percent policy was correctly applied in this case. For that reason, we remand Delano Union's application and direct SLD to review the eligibility of the requested services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 9, 2000, by Delano Union, Delano, California, IS GRANTED to the extent described herein. We direct SLD to review Delano Union's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010919.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010919.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Ohio SchoolNet's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Ohio SchoolNet's initial appeal, Ohio SchoolNet may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 22, 2000, by Ohio SchoolNet Commission, Columbus, Ohio, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Bloxam, Ohio SchoolNet Commission, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 22, 2000. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010920.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010920.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lemoore failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lemoore's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lemoore Union High School District, Hanford, California on February 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ellen Kimbriel, Lemoore Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010921.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010921.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Christopher-Ottilie's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Christopher-Ottilie's initial request, St. Christopher-Ottilie may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 12, 2001, by St. Christopher-Ottilie, Glen Cove, New York, on behalf of Theresa Paplin School, Glen Cove, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011034.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011034.txt
  • provided with an effective ``opportunity to make corrections'' to its FCC Form 471. In an effort to provide applicants with an effective opportunity to make such corrections after the issuance of RALs, SLD now includes both the monthly and annual pre-discount cost of funding requests in RALs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Marion County Public Schools, Ocala, Florida, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Marion's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011035.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011035.txt
  • signing its contracts and submitting its FCC Form 471. SLD should have been able to determine that Joliet complied with the 28-day posting rule. Accordingly, we remand Joliet's application and direct SLD to reconsider Joliet's application and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Joliet Grade School, Springfield, Illinois on June 8, 2000 IS GRANTED, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Danielle Gustafson, Joliet Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011036.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011036.txt
  • qualified existing contract, using other information provided, SLD could have reasonably determined the exact nature of the telecommunication services requested. We, therefore, remand Tomahawk's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and its attachments. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin filed on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lin Kautza, Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011037.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011037.txt
  • 17 would not have been reasonably apparent to SLD. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding and complying with all the relevant programs and procedures. 19 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington, on June 2, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clare Donahue, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011050.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011050.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 7, 2001, by Amherst Independent School District, Amherst, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael P. Nace, Amherst
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011051.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011051.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2001, by Harlandale Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Al Martin, Harlandale
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011052.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011052.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jefferson Independent School District, Jefferson, Texas on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mike Wood, Jefferson Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011053.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011053.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Montgomery County failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Montgomery County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Montgomery County School District, Montgomery, Alabama on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol A. Doucet, Ed.D, Montgomery County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011055.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011055.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because District 4 failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss its appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, Guilford, Maine on February 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael P. Cyr, Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011056.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011056.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 30, 2001, by Tyrone Area School District, Tyrone, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Victoria L. Aults, Tyrone
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011090.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011090.txt
  • and accurately described their funding requests. Moreover, permitting applicants to amend their requests after the window closed could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. We therefore deny Old Town's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 2, 2000, by Old Town School District, Old Town Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard M. Beaudoin, Old Town School Department, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011091.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011091.txt
  • remanded SLD's decision, finding no support in the record for SLD's conclusion in light of the integration of eligible services with the rejected components. Here, SLD has not adequately justified its conclusion that this equipment should be deemed eligible. We therefore remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Philadelphia School District, on August 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Philadelphia's application, and if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above stated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011117.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011117.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Calhan failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Calhan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Calhan School District RJ-1, Calhan, Colorado on April 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sharon A. Olyejar, Calhan School District RJ-1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011118.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011118.txt
  • Form 471 on April 26, 1999, only 18 days after posting its FCC Form 470, demonstrates conclusively that it did not wait at least 28 days from the date of posting its service needs before entering into a service agreement and thus violated the competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 25, 2000 Request for Review filed by Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, Cynthiana, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from E. Susan Ellis, Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011119.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011119.txt
  • subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). We conclude that the particular facts of this case do rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, on July 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from John Lavelle, Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011120.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011120.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, ICS fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, on July 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louise Frangella, Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 24,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011121.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011121.txt
  • view of the merits of Wetzel's Request for Review might be different. Instead, SLD re-construed the request without giving Wetzel notice and opportunity to support its claim. This was an error which warrants granting Wetzel's Request for Review and remanding this matter to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 15, 2000, by Wetzel County School District, New Martinsville, West Virginia, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Wetzel's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011165.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011165.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Babylon failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Babylon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Babylon Union Free School District, North Babylon, New York on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney, North Babylon Union Free School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011179.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011179.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 24, 2001, by Beth Chana Elementary and High School for Girls, Beth Chana, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011180.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011180.txt
  • not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for waiver of our rules. Moreover, because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 12, 2001, by Ellenville Central School District, Ellenville, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Shari L. Dwyer,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011181.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011181.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011182.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011182.txt
  • Sayreville has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sayreville's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sayreville's initial request, Sayreville may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sayreville District Schools, Sayreville, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James Dougherty, Sayreville District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 20, 2001. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011202.txt
  • requests that the Commission order SLD to process its FCC Form 471. Based on the information before us, the USCN provided to SLD on Richland's FCC Form 471 matches the USCN indicated on Richland's FCC Form 470. Accordingly, we remand Richland's application to SLD for further determination. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Appeal filed August 17, 2000, by the Richland School District, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and we REMAND this matter to the Administrator for further processing consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011230.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011230.txt
  • ESoft has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss ESoft's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on ESoft's initial request, ESoft may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Esoft, Inc., Broomfield, Colorado, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Jackie Johnson, Esoft, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 27, 2001. Letter from Schools and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011231.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011231.txt
  • consider Seward's request. Seward subsequently filed the instant Request for Review with the Commission. We have since learned that on August 4, 2000, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter approving Seward's request for discounted services. Therefore, we dismiss Seward's Request for Review because it is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Seward Community Library, Seward, Arkansas on June 30, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Linville, Seward Community Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011248.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011248.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bank Street's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bank Street's initial request, Bank Street may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bank Street School for Children, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Frank Nuara, Bank Street School for Children, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011249.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011249.txt
  • timely appeal with the Administrator. Consistent with this analysis we therefore remand this matter to SLD. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Olmstead's timely May 8, 2000 appeal, Olmstead may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 5, 2001, by Olmstead Falls City Schools, Olmstead Falls, Ohio, is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011251.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011251.txt
  • those employees to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Danbury fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie C. Schroeder, Danbury Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 25, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011252.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011252.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Dummerston fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Dummerston Elementary School, Dummerston, Vermont, on August 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Betsy Whittaker, Dummerston Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on August 24, 2000 (Waiver
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011253.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011253.txt
  • reconsidered its earlier denial and granted Weskan's request, mailing the decision to both Weskan and the service provider. Because the Division finds that the errors asserted by Weskan in its Request for Review have been corrected by SLD, the Division dismisses the Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Weskan Unified School District #242, Weskan, Kansas, on July 17, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Robinson, Weskan Unified School District #242, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011294.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011294.txt
  • Beach acknowledges that it received its April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter at the Long Beach, Washington address. Merely stating that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 30, 2001, by Ocean Beach School District No. 101, Long Beach, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011295.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011295.txt
  • an Administrator's Decision on Appeal on April 16, 2001 approving NJ State Library's appeal which requested corrections to the billed entity information on its SLD application 169943. Because SLD has approved NJ State Library appeal, we dismiss NJ State Library's Request for Review because it is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Jersey State Library, Trenton, New Jersey on June 30, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Kay, New Jersey State Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011328.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011328.txt
  • seek services not initially requested. This administrative practice enables SLD to apply our funding priority rules properly in situations where demand exceeds the annual funding cap. Thus, we do not believe the application should be modified to include a funding request for Internet connections from Merit Network. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by Genesee Intermediate School District on July 31, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Knox-Pipes, Genesee Intermediate School District, Flint, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011329.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011329.txt
  • files, HAFPL demonstrates that it failed to comply with a program mandate. By filing late, HAFPL ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline, HAFPL is subject to the funding priorities set forth in section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford, New Jersey, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sylvia Gidwani, Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford New Jersey, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011330.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011330.txt
  • the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. We find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we therefore, deny Powhatan's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elizabeth, Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000 (Waiver Request). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011352.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011352.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 18, 2001, by First Baptist Academy, Universal City, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to C. Stubblefield, First Baptist
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011358.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011358.txt
  • applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Dallas ISD's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dallas Independent School District on February, 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ruben Bohuchot, Dallas Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 12, 2001 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011360.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011360.txt
  • Madison's Request for Review and conclude that SLD properly denied the Madison's application. Madison has raised no new issues on appeal. Further, Madison has failed to demonstrate that SLD incorrectly applied our rules concerning funding priorities. Accordingly, we uphold SLD's decision and deny Madison's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Madison School District, Madison, Heights, Michigan, on February 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Diane McCord, Madison District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 13, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011361.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011361.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 29, 2000, by Project Interconnect, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William R. Leto, Project Interconnect,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011362.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011362.txt
  • Redondo Beach's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Redondo Beach from having to comply with our policies regarding competitive bidding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Redondo Beach Unified School District, Redondo Beach, California, on September 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Hosken, Redondo Beach Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 7, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011363.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011363.txt
  • the Commission's competitive bidding rules. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. The Division, therefore, denies Ouray's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ouray School District R-1, Ouray, Colorado, on March 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Heidi McDuffie, Ouray School District R-1, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed March 13,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011397.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011397.txt
  • the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. On April 27, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter granting discounts that are-with respect to all eligible services-identical to those requested in the application at issue here. Therefore, we dismiss as moot Fort Osage's Request for Review. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Osage R-1 School District, Independence, Missouri, on March 1, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Fort Osage R-1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011398.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011398.txt
  • because Missoula has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Missoula's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Missoula's request, Missoula may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 31, 2001 by Missoula Public Library, Missoula, Montana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bette Ammon, Missoula Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 31,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011399.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011399.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because ONC failed to file an appeal of the July 5, 2000 Administrator Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ONC's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, Stamford, New York on May 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rodger Oesterle, Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011404.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bnos Zion failed to file an appeal of the September 1, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bnos Zion's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnos Zion of Bobov School, Brooklyn, New York on May 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Jacov Zucker, Bnos Zion of Bobov School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011412.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011412.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Flint ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Flint is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(g). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Sheehan, Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011504.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011504.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Fair Lawn has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 22, 2000 by Fair Lawn Board of Education, Fair Lawn, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey, Deputy Chief Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce Watson, Fair Lawn Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011506.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011506.txt
  • 471 after the filing window closed. Altoona's exemption from the 28-day posting requirement did not relieve it of its obligation under program rules to file its Forms 471 prior to the close of the application window, and we uphold SLD's denial of funding on that grounds. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Altoona Area School District, Altoona, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dean G. Wilt, Altoona Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 7, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011507.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011507.txt
  • for SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Chabad has failed to demonstrate good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Chabad's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on April 9, 2001, by Chabad Hebrew School, Wayne, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Rabbi Michel Gurkov, Chabad Hebrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011508.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011508.txt
  • filed the instant Request for Review. The record shows that on September 15, 2000 and November 17, 2000, SLD issued Funding Commitment Decision Letters regarding requests for discounted services to Epiphany Lutheran School and Clara Muhammad School, respectively. Therefore, we dismiss Connect2's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., Staten Island, New York on January 24, 2000 and March 16, 2000, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letters from John Angelides, Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011509.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011509.txt
  • act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Under the circumstances in this case, we find no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the August 31, 2000, Request for Review filed by Evesham Township Public Schools, Marlton, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Frank Summers, Evesham Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 31, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011510.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011510.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Marshall ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Marshall is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Noel, Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011512.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011512.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Petoskey failed to file an appeal of the January 30, 2001 Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Petoskey's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petosky High School, Petoskey, Michigan on May 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gregory Czarnecki, Petosky High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 2001 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011513.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011513.txt
  • competitive bidding in all situations except where an applicant has a pre-existing contract. Given that SLD had no evidence of such a contract, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Rib Lake for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the June 2, 2000 Request for Review filed by Rib Lake School District, Rib Lake, Wisconsin, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Anderson and Dan Boxx, Rib Lake School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011514.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011514.txt
  • for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form. Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on March 13, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011515.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011515.txt
  • thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we deny St. Marys' Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, on July 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph Petrick, St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011558.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011558.txt
  • by the consortium. Further, there is nothing in the record, including the copy of the agreement with DDS submitted to SLD by SEOVEC, that indicates to the contrary. Thus, the maintenance and support of this equipment were properly characterized as internal connections, and funding was correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 16, 2001 by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this application is remanded to SLD for further consideration of FRN 381223 consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011559.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011559.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 31, 2000, by St. Mary School, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary Campione, St. Mary School,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011560.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011560.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 20, 2000, by West Shore Community College, Scottville, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Remittance Statement from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., dated May 15, 2000. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011571.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011571.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 19, 2001, by New Kensington-Arnold School District, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jim Jones, New Kensington-Arnold
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011572.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011572.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 27, 2001, by Sampson-Clinton Public Library, Clinton, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robin Hollingsworth, Sampson-Clinton Public Library,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011573.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011573.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Arizona Agribusiness failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Arizona Agribusiness's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Proctor Downing, Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011620.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011620.txt
  • for further review. In doing so, we make no determination as to whether the remaining members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts, beyond our finding that they should not be denied on grounds that Project Interconnect lacks authority to make the applications on their behalf. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Project Interconnect on October 16, 2000, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and these applications are remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from William
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011625.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011625.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 5, 2000, by Saint Thomas Aquinas School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephanie Nagle, Saint Thomas
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011697.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011697.txt
  • appeal to SLD should be considered as timely. The record shows that SLD received the SLD Appeal Letter on September 13, 2000, 29 days after the Minimum Processing Standards Letter was mailed. Therefore, Praxis' appeal should be considered as timely and we remand this matter to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by the Praxis Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Jasper Jones, Praxis Institute,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011698.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011698.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 1, 2001, by Rice Independent School District, Rice, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Baer, Rice Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011699.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011699.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2001, by Scott County School District, Forest, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim Crotwell, Scott County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011700.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011700.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Torah's request for telecommunication services. On June 20, 2001, Torah filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Torah's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Torah's Request for Review. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Torah High School of Long Beach, Long Beach, New York, on June 20, 2001, IS GRANTED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011701.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011701.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Yeshivas Boyan failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Yeshivas Boyan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, Brooklyn, New York on January 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi David Endzweig, Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011718.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011718.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Pomona failed to file its appeals of the April 27, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Pomona's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pomona Unified School District, Pomona, California on July 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jaramillo, Pomona Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011721.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011721.txt
  • discretion, be permitted to issue identical determination letters to ``groups'' of the Consolidated Applicants, provided that the factual and substantive similarities between the applicants in a group are clearly explained. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letters of Appeal filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A LIST OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW REMANDED Applicant Application Number Abiline SDA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011724.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011724.txt
  • revisions to the standards for permissible service changes in the LA Unified Order, we remand these Requests for Review to the Administrator for reconsideration pursuant to the Commission's revised policies. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE GRANTED AND REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011725.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011725.txt
  • in posting Saint Jo's FCC Form 470 was solely attributable to USAC, we believe that a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirement is warranted in this case. Therefore, we remand Saint Jo's application to SLD for reprocessing and the issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Jo Independent School District, Saint Jo, Texas IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Saint Jo Independent School District's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011806.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011806.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 6, 2001, by Bristol Bay Borough School District, Naknek, Alaska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sherry Kern, Bristol
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011808.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011808.txt
  • Form 471. Based on this record, we affirm SLD's conclusion that the request was for a tariff service unsupported by a multi-year written contract, and that Goshen's failure to file a new FCC Form 470 in Funding Year 3 supporting the request warranted denial of the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goshen Community Schools, Goshen, Indiana, on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Steven Clason, Goshen Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated March 26, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011819.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011819.txt
  • state that ``the level of poverty [by which discounts are determined] shall be measured by the percentage of their student enrollment that is eligible for a free or reduced price lunch . . . .'' Thus, assuming BJA's allegations are accurate, they do not warrant granting relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baltimore Junior Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on April 9, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Paul Jean-Pierre, Baltimore Junior Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011820.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011820.txt
  • discount percentage for their application was below the funded discount percentage for Internal connections. Because Egg Harbor's appeal is appropriately denied on these grounds, we need not address the question of whether SLD's application of the 30% policy to Egg Harbor's application was consistent with program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Alfred Savio, Jr., Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011821.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011821.txt
  • SPIN for the remaining items of FRN 179922. Therefore, it was inappropriate for SLD to modify the SPIN to Extel for a funding commitment decision that did not contain ``Cat 5/6 wiring, long run portion.'' We find that the SPIN for FRN 179922 should remain Edumedia, Inc. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by LEAP Academy Charter Schools on August 7, 2000 is GRANTED and is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Clinton J. Boyd, LEAP Academy Charter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011822.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011822.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Salem failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Salem's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Salem School District, Salem, New Hampshire on June 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda L. MacDonald, Salem School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 18, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011823.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011823.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 26, 2001, by the Washington Parish School District, Franklinton, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rebecca Kemp, Washington
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011824.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011824.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Zeeland Public Schools, Zeeland, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephen Braunius, Zeeland Public Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011825.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011825.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 7, 1999, by ACCEPT Educational Collaborative, Framingham, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael J. Palladino, Accept Educational Collaborative, to Federal Communications Commission, dated April 7, 1999 (Request for Review). Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011826.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011826.txt
  • However, we also note that FRN 368140 includes a $4.00 charge for an Unpublished Number, which is also an ineligible service. The total ineligible service cost is thus at least $147.50, or 30.5 percent of the $483.00 per month request. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bloomfield Community Schools, Bloomfield, Nebraska on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Marks, Bloomfield Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011827.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011827.txt
  • that on May 29, 2001, SLD issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal indicating that [South Carolina OIR's] appeal has brought forward persuasive information that [South Carolina OIR's] application should be data entered and considered for funding. Therefore, we dismiss South Carolina OIR's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by South Carolina Budget and Control Board Office of Information Resources, Columbia, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from R. Brian Johnson, South Carolina Budget and Control Board
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011877.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011877.txt
  • connections. Because Fort Wayne commingled its requests for discounts for telecommunications services and internal connections within a single funding request, SLD correctly placed the application into the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding in order to avoid treating Priority Two services as Priority One services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Wayne Community School District on July 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Fort Wayne Community School District to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 1,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011878.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011878.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gallatin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gallatin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gallatin R-V School District, Gallatin, Missouri on November 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeanette Sprague, Gallatin R-V School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 7, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011879.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011879.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Mamaroneck failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mamaroneck's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mamaroneck Union Free District, Mamaroneck, New York on December 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sarah Tate, Mamaroneck Union Free District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 6,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011881.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011881.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Chapel Hill has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver, filed June 22, 2000 by Chapel Hill Independent School District, Tyler, Texas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rita Simpson, Chapel Hill Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011883.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011883.txt
  • should have construed it as a service substitution request notwithstanding how the applicant captioned the pleading. As such, SLD should have reviewed the service substitution request on its merits. The Division's reversal of SLD's decision and remanding for further consideration of the request was therefore appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.113 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.113, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County Area Vocational - Technical School, Mercer, Pennsylvania, on June 1, 2000 is GRANTED for the reasons discussed herein, and REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration consisted with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011898.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011898.txt
  • the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Henry-Senachwine has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 23, 2000 by Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District #5, Henry, Illinois IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Privratsky, Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District 5, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 23,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011899.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011899.txt
  • made on behalf of Knox County Public Library, funding request number (FRN) 454127. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved funding for FRN 454127 and such funds were not revoked or suspended. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Intelenet's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bob G. Carnel, Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011900.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011900.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Monessen failed to file an appeal of the June 21, 2000 and June 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Monessen's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by School District of the City of Monessen, Monessen, Pennsylvania on January 22, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard Fantauzzi, School District of the City of Monessen, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011936.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011936.txt
  • an example of an improper request the case of an eligible file server which is also ``built to provide storage functions to supplement personal computers on the network.'' That is precisely the case here, and accordingly, under the Universal Service Order, the entire request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 13, 2000 by Cleveland Municipal School District, seeking review of FRN 421840, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011943.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011943.txt
  • Novell has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Novell's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Novell's initial request, Novell may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Novell, Inc., Provo, Utah, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Teri Olsen, Novell, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2001. Letter from Schools and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011944.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011944.txt
  • Mater Dei's FCC Form 471 was filed outside the filing window. The only relief that Mater Dei could have sought was a waiver of the Commission's rules. Having reviewed the merits of Mater Dei's Waiver Request, we find no basis for waiver of our filing window rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey on March 8, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Giotta, Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011972.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011972.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by Fairland Public School District I-31, Fairland, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Melissa Bryant, Fairland
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011973.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011973.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by New Plymouth School District No. 372, New Plymouth, Idaho, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Vicki
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011974.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011974.txt
  • decision in White Sulphur Springs and the revised eligible services list, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Pinellas' application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Pinellas' use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pinellas County Schools on June 1, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Pinellas' funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011975.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011975.txt
  • before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. The Division, therefore, denies Preston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Preston Town County Library, on April 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Patton, Preston Town County Library, Hot Springs, Montana, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011976.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011976.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Saint Bede's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Saint Bede's initial request, Saint Bede may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Bede The Venerable, Holland, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Mary Boland, Saint Bede The Venerable, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011977.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011977.txt
  • deadline is warranted. We therefore grant WASD's Waiver Request. We direct SLD to process WASD's FCC Form 471 as timely filed, and if otherwise appropriate, to issue an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. However, we make no determination as to whether WASD is ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Allegheny School District, Imperial, Pennsylvania on June 30, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and WASD's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011980.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011980.txt
  • it is not ``necessary to transport information all the way to individual classrooms.'' In sum, network monitoring is not an eligible service under program rules. Thus, SLD properly applied the 30% rule in denying Little River's funding request. We, therefore, deny Little River's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Little River Unified School District 444, Little River, Kansas, on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Milt Dougherty, Little River Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011981.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011981.txt
  • will grant the appeal so long as the applicant points out the mistake, and demonstrates how SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand Brockton's application for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 22, 2000, Request for Review filed by Brockton Public Schools, Brockton, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Brockton's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012016.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012016.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, New Paltz fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by New Paltz Central School District, New Paltz, New York, on February 29, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Deborah Brush, New Paltz Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012017.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012017.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Painesville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Painesville City Schools, Painesville, Ohio, on February 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James R. Fodor, Painesville City Local Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012018.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012018.txt
  • funded so long as the ineligible portion is less than 30% of the total. We therefore remand to SLD to determine, in light of Richland Parish's information on appeal and consistent with this decision, what portion of the request is ineligible and to process the request appropriately. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Richland Parish School District, Rayville, Louisiana, on May 10, 2000 is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012019.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012019.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, St. Ignatius Loyola fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Ignatius Loyola Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on September 27, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeffrey R. Sindler, Saint Ignatius Loyola Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 27,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012020.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012020.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Stephen/Argyle fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Stephen/Argyle Central School District, Stephen, Minnesota, on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie K. Stark, Stephen/Argyle Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012021.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012021.txt
  • if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Wishek's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91., 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wishek Public School, Wishek, North Dakota, on March 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brian Duchscherer, Wishek Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 16, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012022.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012022.txt
  • 19, 2000. Yet it is incumbent upon applicants to allow sufficient time to submit their FCC Forms 470, complete the 28-day competitive bidding period, and then submit their FCC Forms 471 within the filing window. For these reasons, the Division denies Yeshiva of Brooklyn's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York, on April 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Heshy Arem, Yeshiva of Brooklyn, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 10, 2001 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012023.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012023.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Winchendon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Winchendon School, Winchendon, Massachusetts, on June 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from C. Jackson Blair, the Winchendon School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30, 2000 (Waiver
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012024.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Ballard fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Ballard Community School District, Huxley, Iowa, on February 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Connie Marker, Ballard Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012025.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012025.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Elgin fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Elgin Independent School District, Elgin, Texas, on November 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Allbright, Elgin Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 17,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012026.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012026.txt
  • and cites that correct Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. Because this procedure is applicable here, we find that SLD should have granted the appeal. We therefore reverse and remand Service Co-op's application for further consideration of FRN 171379 in light of Form 470 USCN 390330000120972. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 14, 2000 by Reg 6 & 8 Sw/Ctrl/W Srvc Co-op, Marshall, Minnesota, is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012027.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012027.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Renaissance fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Renaissance Charter School, Moscow, Idaho on March 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Kampenhout, Renaissance Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 20, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012028.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012028.txt
  • request. We are informed by SLD personnel that on March 28, 2001, SLD made the SPIN-change which Cleveland Municipal is seeking here. Because the Division finds that Cleveland Municipal has already received the relief that it is requesting, Cleveland Municipal's Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Cleveland Municipal School District on November 13, 2000, seeking review of FRN 418921, is DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012037.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012037.txt
  • RAL on August 23, 1999. Therefore, SLD received the request for corrections 10 days after Hysham received the RAL. As a result, we find that Hysham's request for corrections to the RAL was timely because the corrections were received within two weeks of receipt of the RAL. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hysham Public Schools on August 3, 2000, IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012038.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012038.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by East Greenbush Central Schools, East Greenbush, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Donn F.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012063.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012063.txt
  • "in window" application. On February 2, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter to SEED School regarding the requests for discounts at issue in this Request for Review. Thus, upon review of the record, we find it is appropriate to dismiss SEED School's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by SEED School, Washington, DC on April 21, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Thomas J. Downey, SEED School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 21, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012065.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012065.txt
  • SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we remand to SLD for a determination of whether DeKalb had a pre-existing contract governing the FRNs at issue, and is eligible for discounts for those FRNs under program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 22, 2000, by DeKalb County School System, Decatur, Georgia, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review DeKalb's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012085.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012085.txt
  • Letter, whether because of SLD's error or the applicant's, SLD will correct the SPIN upon written request and verification. Here, a written request was made, and we therefore remand this application to SLD to obtain verification and process the SPIN correction in accordance with its procedures. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Trussville Public Library, Birmingham, Alabama, on December 14, 1999, IS GRANTED, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Moody,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012086.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012086.txt
  • Chimes has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Chimes' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Chimes' initial appeal, Chimes may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chimes School, Baltimore, Marlyand, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Martin Lampner, Chimes School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000. See Letter from Martin Lampner,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012087.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012087.txt
  • for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, St. Jean Vianney fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Jean Vianney School, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 31, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patrice A. Robinson, St. Jean Vianney School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012098.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012098.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012129.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012129.txt
  • provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. Because the record demonstrates that Bnos Yaakov received mail from SLD at the same address listed in the more detailed letter, we find no reason to deviate from this standard. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 28, 2000, by Congregation Bnos Yaakov, Lakewood, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, Congregation
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012130.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because DeKalb failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss DeKalb's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by DeKalb Independent School District, DeKalb, Texas on September 4, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Timothy Williams, DeKalb Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 4, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012131.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012131.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Estelline failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Estelline's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Estelline School District 28-2, Estelline, South Dakota on August 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kristina Atyeo, Estelline School District 28-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012137.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012137.txt
  • for a retroactive waiver of the 30-day appeal deadline for Funding Year 1 applicants who filed untimely appeals, E-Rate Central's request that we also authorize new appeal funding procedures for these applicants is moot. We therefore dismiss this part of the Request for Waiver as well. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed E-Rate Central, Plandome, New York, on August 12, 1999, is DENIED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 12, 1999 (Request for Waiver).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012185.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012185.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Watonwan fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Watonwan County Library, St. James, Minnesota, on July 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cheryl Bjoin, Watonwan County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012219.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012219.txt
  • received over 36,000 applications. It is impractical, if not impossible, for SLD to review each application and notify applicants of errors prior to the close of the filing window. The Division, therefore, finds that the applicant violated the 28-day waiting period and denies Washington's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David L. Bringman, Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012226.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012226.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 11, 2001, by City of Cameron, Cameron, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Janet Sheguit, City of Cameron,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012227.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012227.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Sealy failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sealy's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sealy Independent School District, Sealy, Texas on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosa Ojeda, Sealy Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012228.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012228.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 7, 2001, by Shelby City Schools, Shelby, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Keith Rittenhouse, Shelby City Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012229.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012229.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Cecelia failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Cecelia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Cecelia School, Clearwater, Florida on September 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ellen Patrick, St. Cecelia School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 12, 2001. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012230.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012230.txt
  • through the Tech Centers, had actual authority to act on behalf of the school districts listed in the consortium. We, therefore, remand Clackamas' application to SLD for further fact-finding. However, we make no determination has to whether any members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, on October 13, 2000, IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012241.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012241.txt
  • after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Haslett's request for funding and we therefore deny Haslett's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, on February 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Martell, Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012275.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012275.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Sacred Heart failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sacred Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sacred Heart Elementary School, San Francisco, California on September 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Savita Sahi, Sacred Heart Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012276.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012276.txt
  • 127047 because the record shows that Sperry failed to complete this application. Because there is no completed FCC Form 471 for application number 127045, and because Sperry has failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would so necessitate, a waiver of the filing window is not warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Sperry Public Schools, Sperry, Oklahoma, on October 7, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jobe, Sperry Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 7, 1999 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012290.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012290.txt
  • that SLD could have determined the city name of the billed entity. As a result, in these particular circumstances, we do not believe that the omission of the city of the billed entity in Block 1, item 4a should have prevented SLD from data entering AEPPR's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eduardo Delgado, Asociacion
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012292.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012292.txt
  • including the 28-day competitive bidding requirements. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. The Division, therefore, denies NYMA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York Military Academy, Hudson, New York, on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A FUNDING YEAR 2 DATE EVENT January 7, 1999 File FCC Form 470 FUNDING
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012328.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012328.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bear Lake fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bear Lake County Library District, Montpelier, Idaho, on November 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Nate, Bear Lake County Library District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012329.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012329.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Mississippi DOE failed to file an appeal of the July 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mississippi DOE's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mississippi Department of Education, Mississippi DOE, Mississippi on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Amory School District, Greenwood Springs, MS; Coahoma County School District, Clarksdale, MS; Lee County School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012330.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012330.txt
  • website was incorrect. Thus, we find that SLD's posting of an incorrect zip code contributed to the untimely filing by West Las Vegas of its FCC Form 471. We therefore conclude that West Las Vegas has demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Las Vegas Schools, Las Vegas, New Mexico, on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process West Las Vegas's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012331.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012331.txt
  • the requests in Henry County's FCC Form 471 only posted a request for telecommunications services. The FRN at issue, FRN 276939, requests discounted internal connections. Because Henry County failed to post the service for which it seeks discounts, it did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henry County Board of Education, Abbeville, Alabama, on October 25, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Neil Dodson, Henry County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012332.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012332.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Midland fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Midland School District, Pleasant Plains, Arkansas, on February 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim LaRue, Midland School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 15, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012333.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012333.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Montville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Montville Township Public Schools, Montville, New Jersey, on March 23, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dominic J. Butler, Montville Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012362.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012362.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Center SD's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Center SD's initial appeal, it may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center School District, Kansas City, Missouri, on July 31, 2000 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bruce Rehmer, Center School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012372.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012372.txt
  • Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Elkhart has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed July 10, 2000 by Elkhart Community Schools, Elkhart, Indiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Woods, Elkhart Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012398.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012398.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Belt Schools failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Belt Schools' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Belt Schools, Great Falls, Montana on September 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tom Glover, Belt Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2001. Letter from Schools
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012399.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012399.txt
  • window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Garfield has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed April 17, 2000 by Garfield School District, Garfield, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Raymond Hryczyk, Garfield School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012400.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012400.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 28, 2001, by Hazelwood School District, Florissant, Missouri, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert J. Wukitsch, Hazelwood School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012401.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012401.txt
  • SLD should have notified Lettie Jensen of the signature deficiency in the form in time for Lettie Jensen to submit an in-window FCC Form 471 that complied with the competitive bidding rules. We therefore further find that good cause exists to grant Lettie Jensen's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lettie W. Jensen Library, Amherst, Wisconsin, on February 26, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and Lettie Jensen's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01073.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01073.txt
  • of the applicants; (2) the omitted information could be easily discerned by SLD through examination of other information included in the application; and (3) the application is otherwise substantially complete. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, is REMANDED to the Schools and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd091005.html
  • ). Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Adopted: 10/02/2009 by ORDER. (DA No. 09-2165). MB [35]DA-09-2165A1.doc [36]DA-09-2165A1.pdf [37]DA-09-2165A1.txt HIGH-COST UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT, FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. Dismissed Centennial's petition for waiver. (Dkt No. 05-337 ). Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 10/02/2009 by ORDER. (DA No. 09-2150). WCB [38]DA-09-2150A1.doc [39]DA-09-2150A1.pdf [40]DA-09-2150A1.txt REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 54.722(A) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES FOR REVIEW OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY DECISION ON HIGH COST SUPPORT MECHANISM BENEFICIARY APPEAL. Denied Centennial's request for reversal of a decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company to recover universal service interstate common line support from Centennial. (Dkt No. 96-45 ). Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 10/02/2009 by ORDER. (DA No. 09-2151).
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1270A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1270A1.pdf
  • the foregoing reasons, we deny the Request for Review and remand the relevant applications to USAC to continue the commitment adjustment recovery actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Send Technologies, L.L.C., on January 19, 2004 and March 22, 2004 ARE DENIED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1- 4 and 254
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/pendproceed.html
  • 2008 and 2009 FCC Forms 499-A.The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a request by Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone Inc. for review of USAC's management response to the independent auditor's report that evaluated the company's compliance with the requirements of the high-cost universal service program from July 1, 2007 thru June 30, 200 8 .Sections:54.719(c), 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commissions Rules (petition filed Oct. 21, 2010). CC DKT No. 08-71 [151]DA-10-2100 December 1, 2010 December 16, 2010 IP Telcom, Inc. Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on IP Telcoms request that the Commission direct USAC to waive the revision deadline and permit IP Telcom to amend its 2008 and 2009 FCC Forms 499-A. CC DKT
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/Archives/highcost2006archive.html
  • regarding certain aspects of the 2006 Contribution Methodology Reform Order and previous Commission and Bureau-level Orders. Comments Due: September 11, 2006 and Reply Comments Due: September 26, 2006. [70]Word | [71]Acrobat 8/7/06 Order: The Commission grant requests for review filed by Darien Telephone Company, Inc., Logal elephone Cooperative, Inc., and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. [72]Word | [73]Acrobat July 2006 Releases 7/25/06 Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on the petition of Gorham Telephone Company, Inc., and Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., to waive the study area boundary freeze, as codified, in Part 36, and Gorham Telephone Company's request for waiver of section 69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's rules. Comments
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/highcost.html
  • d/b/a Innovatitive Telephone Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a request by Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone Inc. for review of USAC's management response to the independent auditor's report that evaluated the company's compliance with the requirements of the high-cost universal service program from July 1, 2007 thru June 30, 200 8 .Sections:54.719(c), 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commissions Rules (petition filed Oct. 21, 2010). Public Notice [211]Word | [212]PDF 11/1/2010 Syringa Wireless, LLC Order: In this order, the Bureau grants a request by Syringa Wireless, LLC (Syringa) for a waiver of the universal service high-cost filing deadline set forth in sections 54.307(c) of the Commissions rules. We conclude that a waiver is warranted because Syringa
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/welcome.html
  • d/b/a Innovative Telephone Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a request by Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone Inc. for review of USAC's management response to the independent auditor's report that evaluated the company's compliance with the requirements of the high-cost universal service program from July 1, 2007 thru June 30, 200 8 .Sections:54.719(c), 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commissions Rules (petition filed Oct. 21, 2010). [867]Word [868]PDF October 2010 10/28/2010 Cornerstones of Care Order: In this order, we address 10 appeals of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) denying requests for funding under the E-rate program (more formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support program) on the ground that the consortia
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1277A1.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Blessed Sacrament's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Blessed Sacrament's appeal, Blessed Sacrament may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 17, 2000, by Blessed Sacrament School, Washington, DC, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Walsh, Blessed Sacrament School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1278A1.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Brevard County's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 8, 2000, by Brevard County School District, Viera, Florida, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1279A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 29, 2000, by Calallen Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William C. Ball, Calallen Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1280A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 23, 2000, by Casa Grande Union High School District, Casa Grande, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Steven R. DiMuzio, Casa Grande
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1281A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 27, 2000, by Covina-Valley Unified School District, Covina, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ray Harder, Covina-Valley Unified School District, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1282A1.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 28, 2000, by the Enlarged City School District of Troy, Troy, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Armand J. Reo,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1283A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 1, 2000, by Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School District No. 775, Kerkhoven, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kim Hippen, Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1284A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 14, 1999, by Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jenny Ettenheim, Milwaukee Jewish Day School, dated September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1285A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss North Chicago's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on North Chicago's initial appeal, North Chicago may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tyrone Pipkin, North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2264A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Carl Schurz failed to file an appeal of the August 17, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Carl Schurz's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School, Chicago, Illinois on April 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2265A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 23, 2000, by Central Agency for Jewish Education, Miami, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathie Yuz, Central
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2266A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 5, 2000, by Clifton Independent School District, Clifton, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Brenda Vrazel, Clifton Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2267A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colonial failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colonial's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colonial School District, East Concord, New York on June 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R. F. Thompson, Thompson Communications Company, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2268A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Eastern Plains failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Eastern Plains' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico on July 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Becky Rowley, Clovis community College, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2269A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Garden Grove failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Garden Grove's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Garden Grove Unified School District, Garden Grove, California on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cung Nguyen, Garden Grove Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2270A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Judge Memorial Catholic High School, Salt Lake City, Utah, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jane
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2271A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Kanawha County failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Kanawha County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Kanawha County School District, Charleston, West Virginia on June 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Patrick Law, Kanawha County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2272A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 18, 2000, by Marion School District 54, Marion, Montana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ron Osborne, Marion School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2273A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Newburgh failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Newburgh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laval S. Wilson, Newburgh Enlarged City School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2274A1.pdf
  • Administrator. Because New Castle cannot show that it filed a timely appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Castle's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Castle Community Schools, New Castle, Indiana on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Larry Koby, New Castle Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2275A1.pdf
  • the Administrator. Because Oscoda failed to file an appeal of the December 1, 1998 and February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Oscoda's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Oscoda Area Schools, Oscoda, Michigan on May 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from W.C. Bill Martin, Oscoda Area Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2276A1.pdf
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 2, 2000, by Pace School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kai S. Hoke, Pace School, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2277A1.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: October 6, 2000 Released: October 10, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 20, 1999, by Pinckneyville District #50, Pinckneyville, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim O'Leary, Pinckneyville District #50,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2278A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 2000, by Racine Unified School District of Racine, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael S. Dingman,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2279A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Saint Andrew failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Saint Andrew's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Saint Andrew School, Chicago, Illinois on June 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jack Percival, Saint Andrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2280A1.pdf
  • issued by the Administrator. Because San Juan failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss San Juan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by San Juan Unified School District, Carmichael, California on May 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tim McCarty, San Juan Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2281A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Scotch Plains failed to file appeals of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decisions dismissing Scotch Plains' appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, Scotch Plains, New Jersey on May 30, 2000, and May 31, 2000, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donald L. Williams, Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2496A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Arvin Brown's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Arvin Brown's initial appeal, Arvin Brown may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on August 8, 2000 by Arvin A. Brown Library, Richford, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Annette Goyne, Arvin A. Brown Library, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2497A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ballinger failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ballinger's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ballinger I.S.D., Ballinger, Texas on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laura Strube, Ballinger I.S.D., to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2498A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Big Rapids failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Big Rapids' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Big Rapids Public Schools, Big Rapids, Michigan on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph A. Bouman, Big Rapids Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2499A1.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Caledonia North failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Caledonia North's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Caledonia North Supervisory Union, Lyndonville, Vermont on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ann Riggie, Caledonia North Supervisory Union, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2500A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Douglas failed to file an appeal of the February 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Douglas' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Douglas Public Library, Douglas, Arizona on July 21, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Glenda Bavier, Douglas Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 21, 1999 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2501A1.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: November 7, 2000 Released: November 8, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2502A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Elgin failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Elgin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Elgin Independent School District 16, Elgin, Oklahoma on August 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Doris Wilson, Elgin Independent School District 16, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2503A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Holy Family failed to file an appeal of the June 6, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Holy Family's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Holy Family School, Sioux City, Iowa on August 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cindy Spenner, Holy Family School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2504A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the April 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Jefferson County School District, Fayette, Mississippi on July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John E. Dickey, Jefferson County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2505A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the September 14, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by The Jefferson School, Jefferson, Maryland on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul Thewsuvat, The Jefferson School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2506A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Granite failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Granite's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Granite School District, Salt Lake City, Utah on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. James Henderson, Granite School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2507A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 10, 2000, by Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, Nebraska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Steinberger, Lexington Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2508A1.txt
  • issuance of the June 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a weekend, Mt. Diablo's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Mt. Diablo's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Mt. Diablo's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Perry W. Polk, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2509A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 15, 2000, by Oregon Trail School District, Sandy, Oregon, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Miriam Mann, Oregon Trail
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2510A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southeastern failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southeastern's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio on August 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert L. Lindsey, Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2511A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southwick-Tolland failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southwick-Tolland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, Southwick, Massachusetts on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul R. Petit, Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2512A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Anthony failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Anthony's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Anthony School, New York, New York on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tess A. Alviar, St. Anthony School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2513A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Rita failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Rita's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Rita School, New Orleans, Louisiana on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Annette Baxley, St. Rita School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2514A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 30, 2000, by Yeshiva Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Green, Yeshiva Schools, dated July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2531A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Austin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Austin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Austin Public School 492, Austin, Minnesota on July 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lori Volz, Austin Public School 492, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 27, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2532A1.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a holiday, Bloomfield's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Bloomfield's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Bloomfield's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bloomfield Public Library, Bloomfield, Iowa on July 18, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Regina Gooden, Bloomfield Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 18, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2533A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Cumberland failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Cumberland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Cumberland County School District, Burkesville, Kentucky on July 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robin Sharp, Cumberland County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2534A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Joel Pate,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2535A1.txt
  • Because Florence Carlton failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 and May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence Carlton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence Carlton School District 15-6, Florence, Montana on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Elaine Huseby, Florence Carlton School District 15-6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2536A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Florence failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence City School District, Florence, Alabama on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Edison D. Barney, Florence City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2537A1.txt
  • Lincoln has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lincoln's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lincoln's initial appeal, Lincoln may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 8, 2000 by Lincoln School District 156, Calumet City, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dr. Kenneth Jandes, Lincoln School District 156, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2538A1.txt
  • issuance of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 9, 2000, a holiday, Moon Area's July 10, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Moon Area's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Moon Area's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Moon Area School District, Moon Township, Pennsylvania on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel H. Vogel, Moon Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2539A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Attleborough failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Attleborough's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Attleborough School District, North Attleborough, Massachusetts on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland Denault, North Attleborough School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2540A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gildford failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gildford's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Gildford School, Gildford, Montana on June 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Stahl, North Gildford School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 19, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2541A1.txt
  • the issuance of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 30, 2000, a weekend, Roosevelt Elementary's July 31, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Roosevelt Elementary's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Roosevelt's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, Phoenix, Arizona on August 22, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Harris, Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2542A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Simpson County's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Simpson County's initial appeal, Simpson County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 23, 2000 by Simpson County School District, Mendenhall, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kay Berry, Simpson County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2543A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because South Heart failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss South Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by South Heart School, South Heart, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paula Lengowski, South Heart School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2544A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Peter & Paul failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Peter & Paul's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by SS. Peter & Paul School, Cary, Illinois on July 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Katrina Lamkin, SS. Peter & Paul School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2545A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Patrick failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Patrick's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Patrick's School, Dickinson, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brenda L. Selinger, St. Patrick's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2546A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Swift River failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Swift River's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Swift River Elementary School, New Salem, Massachusetts on July 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol S. Holzberg, Swift River Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2547A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Vacaville failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Vacaville's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Vacaville Unified School District, Vacaville, California on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry D. Beckham, Vacaville Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2548A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because AECSD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss AECSD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Auburn Enlarged City School District, Fairport, New York on July 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Matthew Crider, ECC Technologies, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2549A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Chisago Lakes failed to file an appeal of the May 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Chisago Lakes' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Chisago Lakes School District #2144, Lindstrom, Minnesota on July 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cathryn E. Kolkind, Chisago Lakes School District #2144, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2550A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colton failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colton Joint Unified School District, Upland, California on September 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Kendrick, Colton Joint Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2551A1.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 11, 2000, a holiday, Durham's May 12, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Durham's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Durham's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Durham Unified School District, Durham, California on July 11, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Christy R. Patterson, Durham Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2552A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Elko County School District, Elko, Nevada, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William McLeod, Elko County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2553A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Girard failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Girard's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Girard City School District, Girard, Ohio on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anthony D. Ambrosio, Girard City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2554A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because McIntosh failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss McIntosh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by McIntosh County Schools, Darien, Georgia on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Debby Richardson, McIntosh County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2555A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, Hayti, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lawrence L. Furney,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2556A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ryan failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ryan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ryan Public School, Ryan, Oklahoma on August 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don A. Bogard, Ryan Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 23, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2557A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 11, 2000, by Traverse City Area Public Schools, Traverse City, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary P.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2558A1.txt
  • period after the issuance of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 6, 2000, a holiday, Xavier's August 7, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Xavier's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Xavier's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Xavier High School, Cedar Rapids, Iowa on August 29, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Henderson, Xavier High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2559A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because ESU No. 6 failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ESU No. 6's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Educational Service Unit No. 06, Omaha, Nebraska on August 30, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Ferneding, Educational Service Unit No. 06, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2561A1.txt
  • distance telephone service and other services that are characterized as ``telecommunications services'' in the service agreement between West Texas and Texas State Technical College. Given the prohibition on funding of telecommunications services provided by a non-telecommunications provider under program rules, we conclude that SLD properly denied funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the West Texas Telecommunications Consortium, Abilene, Texas, May 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Simoneau, West Texas Telecommunications Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 3, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2574A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Eatonville's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Eatonville School District, Eatonville, Washington, on May 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Raymond F. Arment, III, Eatonville School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2575A1.pdf
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Delta/Greely failed to file an appeal of the February 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Delta/Greely's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Delta/Greely School District, Delta Junction, Alaska on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Johnson, Delta/Greely School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 22, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2576A1.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Mississippi Department of Education, Jackson, Mississippi on April 14, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Mississippi's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2630A1.txt
  • program rules and procedures. The program's rules state repeatedly that universal service funds support only eligible services. Anderson should have been aware that it was seeking discounts for ineligible internal connections. We conclude SLD appropriately applied its 30 percent policy based upon the facts of this case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed May 30, 2000, by Anderson School, Staatsburg, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau In the Matter of Request for Review by Anderson School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2631A1.txt
  • stated that the lesser quotes were for ``the remaining schools,'' implying that these were separate quotes. Because SLD incorrectly determined that the funding request from Winterset was for ineligible services or products, Winterset's request for review is granted, and SLD is directed to reconsider Winterset's funding request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Winterset Community School District, Winterset, Iowa, IS GRANTED to the extent stated herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ivan T. Webber, on behalf of Winterset School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2642A1.txt
  • an ``inquiry,'' rather than an appeal. Because Houston Independent filed the letter within 30 days of SLD's June 16, 2000, Funding Commitment Decision Letter, it was timely filed. Accordingly, we grant in part Houston Independent's Letters of Appeal and direct SLD to review Houston Independent's initial appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas on August 18, 2000 and August 21, 2000, ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daryl Ann Borel, Houston Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2650A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bryn Athyn failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bryn Athyn's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bryn Athyn Church School, Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania on September 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melodie Greer, Bryn Athyn Church School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2651A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because EDmin failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss EDmin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by EDmin Open Systems, Inc., San Diego, California on September 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Shorts, EDmin Open Systems, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2652A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 8, 2000, by James Ward Elementary School, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Kline, James Ward
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2653A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Madera failed to file an appeal of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Madera's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Madera Unified School District, Madera, California on September 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Imrie, Madera Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2654A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 11, 2000, by Norwell Public Schools, Norwell, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard F. Sulc, Norwell Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2655A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Richland Colfax failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Richland Colfax's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Richland Colfax No. 1, Richland, Nebraska on September 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judith Kabourek, Richland Colfax No. 1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 6, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2656A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Rosa failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Rosa's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, Santa Rosa, New Mexico on September 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel Flores, Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2657A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ynez failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ynez's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District, Santa Ynez, California on September 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Fred Van Leuven, Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2658A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 28, 2000, by Saint John Bosco High School, Bellflower, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Stover, Saint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2659A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 23, 2000, by South Brunswick Township School District, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lester
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2660A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 2, 2000, by Westbrook High School, Westbrook, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert Vale, Westbrook High School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2699A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Northwestern's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on September 15, 2000, by Northwestern School District 56-3, Mellette, South Dakota, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2700A1.txt
  • after the issuance of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters fell on August 27, 2000, a holiday, Western Heights' August 28, 2000 appeals should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Western Heights' appeals and direct SLD to review Western Heights' appeals to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Western Heights School District I-41, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on September 28, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Western Heights School District I-41, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2701A1.txt
  • contravenes the Commission's policy that applicants shall not be permitted to amend completed FCC Forms 471 to remove ineligible service requests after the closure of the filing window deadline. If applicants were permitted to make such corrections, SLD and the Commission would face significant additional administrative burdens. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 28, 2000 by Free Library of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from H.E. Broadbent, Free Library of Philadelphia, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed, March 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2722A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies YCS' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Youth Consultation Services, Newark, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kathleen M. Bravo, Youth Consultation Service, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2784A1.txt
  • appeal concerning the other application, stating that ``[y]our appeal has been granted because it is not clear who was contacted initially for the missing documentation. . . .'' Because these two decisions based on the same circumstances are inconsistent, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Chichester School District, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania on May 10, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chichester's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2806A1.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Caddo Independent School District 5, Caddo, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Caddo's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2807A1.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Canute Independent School District 11, Canute, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Canute's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2808A1.txt
  • of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 20, 2000, a holiday, Soille San Diego's August 21, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Soille San Diego's appeal and direct SLD to review Soille San Diego's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California on September 15, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2818A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 6, 2000, by Lyman School District No. 42-1, Presho, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce Carrier,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2841A1.txt
  • requirement. The critical issue is when Sackets Harbor signed a contract with the service provider, not when it mailed the Form 471. Based on the record before us, Sackets Harbor signed a contract before anyone ever had an opportunity to submit a competitive bid for the project. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Sackets Harbor Central School District, Sackets Harbor, New York on May 5, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne B. Spaziani, Sackets Harbor Central School District 56, to Office of the Secretary, FCC, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2908A1.txt
  • a decision by the Universal Service Administrator to withhold funds allegedly due and payable to Ames under the schools and libraries support mechanisms. On July 31, 2000, Ames filed a Motion to Withdraw its appeal. The Division grants Ames' Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Ames' appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by the Ames Business & Learning Environments, Inc., Chandler, Arizona on July 31, 2000 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2909A1.txt
  • funding implementation deadline for the schools and libraries support mechanism so that it can receive the full amount of funding that it requested. Our review of the record, however, finds that Franklin has received all funds requested. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Franklin's Letter of Appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Franklin County School District, Carnesville, Georgia on December 30, 1999 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alicia A. Frey, Franklin County Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-42A1.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Denison Independent School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 99-#### -42 8¨È
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1034A1.txt
  • provided with an effective ``opportunity to make corrections'' to its FCC Form 471. In an effort to provide applicants with an effective opportunity to make such corrections after the issuance of RALs, SLD now includes both the monthly and annual pre-discount cost of funding requests in RALs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Marion County Public Schools, Ocala, Florida, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Marion's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1035A1.txt
  • signing its contracts and submitting its FCC Form 471. SLD should have been able to determine that Joliet complied with the 28-day posting rule. Accordingly, we remand Joliet's application and direct SLD to reconsider Joliet's application and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Joliet Grade School, Springfield, Illinois on June 8, 2000 IS GRANTED, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Danielle Gustafson, Joliet Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1036A1.txt
  • qualified existing contract, using other information provided, SLD could have reasonably determined the exact nature of the telecommunication services requested. We, therefore, remand Tomahawk's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and its attachments. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin filed on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lin Kautza, Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1037A1.txt
  • 17 would not have been reasonably apparent to SLD. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding and complying with all the relevant programs and procedures. 19 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington, on June 2, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clare Donahue, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1050A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 7, 2001, by Amherst Independent School District, Amherst, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael P. Nace, Amherst
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1051A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2001, by Harlandale Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Al Martin, Harlandale
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1052A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jefferson Independent School District, Jefferson, Texas on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mike Wood, Jefferson Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1053A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Montgomery County failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Montgomery County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Montgomery County School District, Montgomery, Alabama on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol A. Doucet, Ed.D, Montgomery County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1055A1.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because District 4 failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss its appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, Guilford, Maine on February 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael P. Cyr, Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1056A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 30, 2001, by Tyrone Area School District, Tyrone, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Victoria L. Aults, Tyrone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1090A1.txt
  • and accurately described their funding requests. Moreover, permitting applicants to amend their requests after the window closed could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. We therefore deny Old Town's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 2, 2000, by Old Town School District, Old Town Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard M. Beaudoin, Old Town School Department, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1091A1.txt
  • remanded SLD's decision, finding no support in the record for SLD's conclusion in light of the integration of eligible services with the rejected components. Here, SLD has not adequately justified its conclusion that this equipment should be deemed eligible. We therefore remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Philadelphia School District, on August 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Philadelphia's application, and if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above stated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1117A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Calhan failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Calhan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Calhan School District RJ-1, Calhan, Colorado on April 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sharon A. Olyejar, Calhan School District RJ-1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1118A1.txt
  • Form 471 on April 26, 1999, only 18 days after posting its FCC Form 470, demonstrates conclusively that it did not wait at least 28 days from the date of posting its service needs before entering into a service agreement and thus violated the competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 25, 2000 Request for Review filed by Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, Cynthiana, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from E. Susan Ellis, Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1119A1.txt
  • subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). We conclude that the particular facts of this case do rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, on July 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from John Lavelle, Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1120A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, ICS fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, on July 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louise Frangella, Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1121A1.txt
  • view of the merits of Wetzel's Request for Review might be different. Instead, SLD re-construed the request without giving Wetzel notice and opportunity to support its claim. This was an error which warrants granting Wetzel's Request for Review and remanding this matter to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 15, 2000, by Wetzel County School District, New Martinsville, West Virginia, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Wetzel's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1165A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Babylon failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Babylon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Babylon Union Free School District, North Babylon, New York on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney, North Babylon Union Free School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1179A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 24, 2001, by Beth Chana Elementary and High School for Girls, Beth Chana, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1180A1.txt
  • not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for waiver of our rules. Moreover, because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 12, 2001, by Ellenville Central School District, Ellenville, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Shari L. Dwyer,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1181A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1182A1.txt
  • Sayreville has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sayreville's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sayreville's initial request, Sayreville may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sayreville District Schools, Sayreville, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James Dougherty, Sayreville District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 20, 2001. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1202A1.txt
  • requests that the Commission order SLD to process its FCC Form 471. Based on the information before us, the USCN provided to SLD on Richland's FCC Form 471 matches the USCN indicated on Richland's FCC Form 470. Accordingly, we remand Richland's application to SLD for further determination. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Appeal filed August 17, 2000, by the Richland School District, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and we REMAND this matter to the Administrator for further processing consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1248A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bank Street's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bank Street's initial request, Bank Street may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bank Street School for Children, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Frank Nuara, Bank Street School for Children, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1249A1.txt
  • timely appeal with the Administrator. Consistent with this analysis we therefore remand this matter to SLD. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Olmstead's timely May 8, 2000 appeal, Olmstead may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 5, 2001, by Olmstead Falls City Schools, Olmstead Falls, Ohio, is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1251A1.txt
  • those employees to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Danbury fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie C. Schroeder, Danbury Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 25, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1252A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Dummerston fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Dummerston Elementary School, Dummerston, Vermont, on August 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Betsy Whittaker, Dummerston Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on August 24, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1253A1.txt
  • reconsidered its earlier denial and granted Weskan's request, mailing the decision to both Weskan and the service provider. Because the Division finds that the errors asserted by Weskan in its Request for Review have been corrected by SLD, the Division dismisses the Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Weskan Unified School District #242, Weskan, Kansas, on July 17, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Robinson, Weskan Unified School District #242, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1294A1.txt
  • Beach acknowledges that it received its April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter at the Long Beach, Washington address. Merely stating that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 30, 2001, by Ocean Beach School District No. 101, Long Beach, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1295A1.txt
  • an Administrator's Decision on Appeal on April 16, 2001 approving NJ State Library's appeal which requested corrections to the billed entity information on its SLD application 169943. Because SLD has approved NJ State Library appeal, we dismiss NJ State Library's Request for Review because it is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Jersey State Library, Trenton, New Jersey on June 30, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Kay, New Jersey State Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1328A1.txt
  • seek services not initially requested. This administrative practice enables SLD to apply our funding priority rules properly in situations where demand exceeds the annual funding cap. Thus, we do not believe the application should be modified to include a funding request for Internet connections from Merit Network. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by Genesee Intermediate School District on July 31, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Knox-Pipes, Genesee Intermediate School District, Flint, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1329A1.txt
  • files, HAFPL demonstrates that it failed to comply with a program mandate. By filing late, HAFPL ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline, HAFPL is subject to the funding priorities set forth in section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford, New Jersey, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sylvia Gidwani, Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford New Jersey, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1330A1.txt
  • the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. We find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we therefore, deny Powhatan's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elizabeth, Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000 (Waiver Request). 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1362A1.txt
  • Redondo Beach's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Redondo Beach from having to comply with our policies regarding competitive bidding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Redondo Beach Unified School District, Redondo Beach, California, on September 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Hosken, Redondo Beach Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1397A1.txt
  • the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. On April 27, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter granting discounts that are-with respect to all eligible services-identical to those requested in the application at issue here. Therefore, we dismiss as moot Fort Osage's Request for Review. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Osage R-1 School District, Independence, Missouri, on March 1, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Fort Osage R-1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1398A1.txt
  • because Missoula has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Missoula's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Missoula's request, Missoula may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 31, 2001 by Missoula Public Library, Missoula, Montana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bette Ammon, Missoula Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 31,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1399A1.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because ONC failed to file an appeal of the July 5, 2000 Administrator Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ONC's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, Stamford, New York on May 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rodger Oesterle, Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1404A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bnos Zion failed to file an appeal of the September 1, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bnos Zion's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnos Zion of Bobov School, Brooklyn, New York on May 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Jacov Zucker, Bnos Zion of Bobov School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1412A1.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Flint ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Flint is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(g). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Sheehan, Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-145A1.txt
  • Colchester has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Colchester's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Colchester's initial appeal, Colchester may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colchester School District, Colchester, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from John C. Gifford, Colchester School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 13, 2000.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-146A1.txt
  • other priorities. These arguments do not rise to the level of good cause necessary to justify waiving our rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Newburgh has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Newburgh's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on July 10, 2000, by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-147A1.txt
  • 10, 1997 and June 5, 1998. None of these requests were subject to existing, binding agreements as defined by the Commission's rules for Year 2 and were thus subject to the competitive bidding requirement. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Raytown's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 14, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Raytown Quality Schools, Raytown, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R.G. Kirby, Raytown Quality Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-148A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 9, 2000, by Sutton School, CNSU, Lyndonville, Vermont, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary Ann Riggie, Sutton School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1504A1.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Fair Lawn has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 22, 2000 by Fair Lawn Board of Education, Fair Lawn, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey, Deputy Chief Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce Watson, Fair Lawn Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1506A1.txt
  • 471 after the filing window closed. Altoona's exemption from the 28-day posting requirement did not relieve it of its obligation under program rules to file its Forms 471 prior to the close of the application window, and we uphold SLD's denial of funding on that grounds. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Altoona Area School District, Altoona, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dean G. Wilt, Altoona Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1507A1.txt
  • for SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Chabad has failed to demonstrate good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Chabad's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on April 9, 2001, by Chabad Hebrew School, Wayne, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Rabbi Michel Gurkov, Chabad Hebrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1508A1.txt
  • filed the instant Request for Review. The record shows that on September 15, 2000 and November 17, 2000, SLD issued Funding Commitment Decision Letters regarding requests for discounted services to Epiphany Lutheran School and Clara Muhammad School, respectively. Therefore, we dismiss Connect2's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., Staten Island, New York on January 24, 2000 and March 16, 2000, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letters from John Angelides, Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1509A1.txt
  • act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Under the circumstances in this case, we find no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the August 31, 2000, Request for Review filed by Evesham Township Public Schools, Marlton, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Frank Summers, Evesham Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 31, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1510A1.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Marshall ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Marshall is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Noel, Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1512A1.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Petoskey failed to file an appeal of the January 30, 2001 Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Petoskey's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petosky High School, Petoskey, Michigan on May 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gregory Czarnecki, Petosky High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1513A1.txt
  • competitive bidding in all situations except where an applicant has a pre-existing contract. Given that SLD had no evidence of such a contract, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Rib Lake for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the June 2, 2000 Request for Review filed by Rib Lake School District, Rib Lake, Wisconsin, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Anderson and Dan Boxx, Rib Lake School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1514A1.txt
  • for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form. Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on March 13, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1515A1.txt
  • thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we deny St. Marys' Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, on July 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph Petrick, St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1558A1.txt
  • by the consortium. Further, there is nothing in the record, including the copy of the agreement with DDS submitted to SLD by SEOVEC, that indicates to the contrary. Thus, the maintenance and support of this equipment were properly characterized as internal connections, and funding was correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 16, 2001 by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this application is remanded to SLD for further consideration of FRN 381223 consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1559A1.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 31, 2000, by St. Mary School, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary Campione, St. Mary School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1560A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 20, 2000, by West Shore Community College, Scottville, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Remittance Statement from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., dated May 15, 2000. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1571A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 19, 2001, by New Kensington-Arnold School District, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jim Jones, New Kensington-Arnold
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1572A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 27, 2001, by Sampson-Clinton Public Library, Clinton, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robin Hollingsworth, Sampson-Clinton Public Library,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1573A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Arizona Agribusiness failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Arizona Agribusiness's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Proctor Downing, Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1620A1.txt
  • for further review. In doing so, we make no determination as to whether the remaining members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts, beyond our finding that they should not be denied on grounds that Project Interconnect lacks authority to make the applications on their behalf. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Project Interconnect on October 16, 2000, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and these applications are remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from William
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1625A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 5, 2000, by Saint Thomas Aquinas School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephanie Nagle, Saint Thomas
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1697A1.txt
  • appeal to SLD should be considered as timely. The record shows that SLD received the SLD Appeal Letter on September 13, 2000, 29 days after the Minimum Processing Standards Letter was mailed. Therefore, Praxis' appeal should be considered as timely and we remand this matter to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by the Praxis Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Jasper Jones, Praxis Institute,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1698A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 1, 2001, by Rice Independent School District, Rice, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Baer, Rice Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1699A1.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2001, by Scott County School District, Forest, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim Crotwell, Scott County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1700A1.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Torah's request for telecommunication services. On June 20, 2001, Torah filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Torah's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Torah's Request for Review. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Torah High School of Long Beach, Long Beach, New York, on June 20, 2001, IS GRANTED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1701A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Yeshivas Boyan failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Yeshivas Boyan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, Brooklyn, New York on January 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi David Endzweig, Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1718A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Pomona failed to file its appeals of the April 27, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Pomona's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pomona Unified School District, Pomona, California on July 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jaramillo, Pomona Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1721A1.txt
  • discretion, be permitted to issue identical determination letters to ``groups'' of the Consolidated Applicants, provided that the factual and substantive similarities between the applicants in a group are clearly explained. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letters of Appeal filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A LIST OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW REMANDED Applicant Application Number Abiline SDA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1724A1.txt
  • revisions to the standards for permissible service changes in the LA Unified Order, we remand these Requests for Review to the Administrator for reconsideration pursuant to the Commission's revised policies. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE GRANTED AND REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1725A1.txt
  • in posting Saint Jo's FCC Form 470 was solely attributable to USAC, we believe that a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirement is warranted in this case. Therefore, we remand Saint Jo's application to SLD for reprocessing and the issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Jo Independent School District, Saint Jo, Texas IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Saint Jo Independent School District's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-175A1.txt
  • the burden of carefully reviewing all documents sent to and received from SLD for accuracy. Accordingly, we conclude that East Side Union has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny East Side Union's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 11, 2000, by East Side Union High School District, San Jose, California, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1806A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 6, 2001, by Bristol Bay Borough School District, Naknek, Alaska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sherry Kern, Bristol
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1808A1.txt
  • Form 471. Based on this record, we affirm SLD's conclusion that the request was for a tariff service unsupported by a multi-year written contract, and that Goshen's failure to file a new FCC Form 470 in Funding Year 3 supporting the request warranted denial of the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goshen Community Schools, Goshen, Indiana, on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Steven Clason, Goshen Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated March 26, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1819A1.txt
  • state that ``the level of poverty [by which discounts are determined] shall be measured by the percentage of their student enrollment that is eligible for a free or reduced price lunch . . . .'' Thus, assuming BJA's allegations are accurate, they do not warrant granting relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baltimore Junior Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on April 9, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Paul Jean-Pierre, Baltimore Junior Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1820A1.txt
  • discount percentage for their application was below the funded discount percentage for Internal connections. Because Egg Harbor's appeal is appropriately denied on these grounds, we need not address the question of whether SLD's application of the 30% policy to Egg Harbor's application was consistent with program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Alfred Savio, Jr., Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1821A1.txt
  • SPIN for the remaining items of FRN 179922. Therefore, it was inappropriate for SLD to modify the SPIN to Extel for a funding commitment decision that did not contain ``Cat 5/6 wiring, long run portion.'' We find that the SPIN for FRN 179922 should remain Edumedia, Inc. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by LEAP Academy Charter Schools on August 7, 2000 is GRANTED and is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Clinton J. Boyd, LEAP Academy Charter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1822A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Salem failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Salem's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Salem School District, Salem, New Hampshire on June 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda L. MacDonald, Salem School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 18, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1823A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 26, 2001, by the Washington Parish School District, Franklinton, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rebecca Kemp, Washington
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1824A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Zeeland Public Schools, Zeeland, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephen Braunius, Zeeland Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1825A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 7, 1999, by ACCEPT Educational Collaborative, Framingham, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael J. Palladino, Accept Educational Collaborative, to Federal Communications Commission, dated April 7, 1999 (Request for Review). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1826A1.txt
  • However, we also note that FRN 368140 includes a $4.00 charge for an Unpublished Number, which is also an ineligible service. The total ineligible service cost is thus at least $147.50, or 30.5 percent of the $483.00 per month request. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bloomfield Community Schools, Bloomfield, Nebraska on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Marks, Bloomfield Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1827A1.txt
  • that on May 29, 2001, SLD issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal indicating that [South Carolina OIR's] appeal has brought forward persuasive information that [South Carolina OIR's] application should be data entered and considered for funding. Therefore, we dismiss South Carolina OIR's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by South Carolina Budget and Control Board Office of Information Resources, Columbia, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from R. Brian Johnson, South Carolina Budget and Control Board
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1877A1.txt
  • connections. Because Fort Wayne commingled its requests for discounts for telecommunications services and internal connections within a single funding request, SLD correctly placed the application into the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding in order to avoid treating Priority Two services as Priority One services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Wayne Community School District on July 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Fort Wayne Community School District to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1878A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gallatin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gallatin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gallatin R-V School District, Gallatin, Missouri on November 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeanette Sprague, Gallatin R-V School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1879A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Mamaroneck failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mamaroneck's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mamaroneck Union Free District, Mamaroneck, New York on December 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sarah Tate, Mamaroneck Union Free District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1881A1.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Chapel Hill has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver, filed June 22, 2000 by Chapel Hill Independent School District, Tyler, Texas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rita Simpson, Chapel Hill Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1883A1.txt
  • should have construed it as a service substitution request notwithstanding how the applicant captioned the pleading. As such, SLD should have reviewed the service substitution request on its merits. The Division's reversal of SLD's decision and remanding for further consideration of the request was therefore appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.113 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.113, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County Area Vocational - Technical School, Mercer, Pennsylvania, on June 1, 2000 is GRANTED for the reasons discussed herein, and REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration consisted with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1898A1.txt
  • the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Henry-Senachwine has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 23, 2000 by Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District #5, Henry, Illinois IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Privratsky, Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District 5, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 23,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1899A1.txt
  • made on behalf of Knox County Public Library, funding request number (FRN) 454127. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved funding for FRN 454127 and such funds were not revoked or suspended. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Intelenet's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bob G. Carnel, Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1900A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Monessen failed to file an appeal of the June 21, 2000 and June 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Monessen's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by School District of the City of Monessen, Monessen, Pennsylvania on January 22, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard Fantauzzi, School District of the City of Monessen, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1936A1.pdf
  • an example of an improper request the case of an eligible file server which is also ``built to provide storage functions to supplement personal computers on the network.'' That is precisely the case here, and accordingly, under the Universal Service Order, the entire request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 13, 2000 by Cleveland Municipal School District, seeking review of FRN 421840, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1943A1.txt
  • Novell has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Novell's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Novell's initial request, Novell may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Novell, Inc., Provo, Utah, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Teri Olsen, Novell, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2001. Letter from Schools and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1944A1.txt
  • Mater Dei's FCC Form 471 was filed outside the filing window. The only relief that Mater Dei could have sought was a waiver of the Commission's rules. Having reviewed the merits of Mater Dei's Waiver Request, we find no basis for waiver of our filing window rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey on March 8, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Giotta, Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1972A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by Fairland Public School District I-31, Fairland, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Melissa Bryant, Fairland
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1973A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by New Plymouth School District No. 372, New Plymouth, Idaho, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Vicki
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1974A1.txt
  • decision in White Sulphur Springs and the revised eligible services list, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Pinellas' application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Pinellas' use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pinellas County Schools on June 1, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Pinellas' funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1975A1.txt
  • before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. The Division, therefore, denies Preston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Preston Town County Library, on April 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Patton, Preston Town County Library, Hot Springs, Montana, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1976A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Saint Bede's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Saint Bede's initial request, Saint Bede may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Bede The Venerable, Holland, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Mary Boland, Saint Bede The Venerable, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1977A1.txt
  • deadline is warranted. We therefore grant WASD's Waiver Request. We direct SLD to process WASD's FCC Form 471 as timely filed, and if otherwise appropriate, to issue an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. However, we make no determination as to whether WASD is ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Allegheny School District, Imperial, Pennsylvania on June 30, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and WASD's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1980A1.txt
  • it is not ``necessary to transport information all the way to individual classrooms.'' In sum, network monitoring is not an eligible service under program rules. Thus, SLD properly applied the 30% rule in denying Little River's funding request. We, therefore, deny Little River's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Little River Unified School District 444, Little River, Kansas, on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Milt Dougherty, Little River Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1981A1.txt
  • will grant the appeal so long as the applicant points out the mistake, and demonstrates how SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand Brockton's application for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 22, 2000, Request for Review filed by Brockton Public Schools, Brockton, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Brockton's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-200A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Atlantic County failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Atlantic County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Atlantic County Library System, Mays Landing, New Jersey on December 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alyce J. Bowers, Atlantic County Library System, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2016A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, New Paltz fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by New Paltz Central School District, New Paltz, New York, on February 29, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Deborah Brush, New Paltz Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2017A1.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Painesville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Painesville City Schools, Painesville, Ohio, on February 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James R. Fodor, Painesville City Local Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2018A1.txt
  • funded so long as the ineligible portion is less than 30% of the total. We therefore remand to SLD to determine, in light of Richland Parish's information on appeal and consistent with this decision, what portion of the request is ineligible and to process the request appropriately. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Richland Parish School District, Rayville, Louisiana, on May 10, 2000 is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2019A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, St. Ignatius Loyola fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Ignatius Loyola Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on September 27, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeffrey R. Sindler, Saint Ignatius Loyola Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-201A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Clearview failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Clearview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Clearview Local School District, Lorain, Ohio on December 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kent R. Zeman, Clearview Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2020A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Stephen/Argyle fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Stephen/Argyle Central School District, Stephen, Minnesota, on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie K. Stark, Stephen/Argyle Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2021A1.txt
  • if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Wishek's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91., 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wishek Public School, Wishek, North Dakota, on March 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brian Duchscherer, Wishek Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 16, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2022A1.txt
  • 19, 2000. Yet it is incumbent upon applicants to allow sufficient time to submit their FCC Forms 470, complete the 28-day competitive bidding period, and then submit their FCC Forms 471 within the filing window. For these reasons, the Division denies Yeshiva of Brooklyn's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York, on April 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Heshy Arem, Yeshiva of Brooklyn, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 10, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2023A1.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Winchendon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Winchendon School, Winchendon, Massachusetts, on June 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from C. Jackson Blair, the Winchendon School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2024A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Ballard fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Ballard Community School District, Huxley, Iowa, on February 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Connie Marker, Ballard Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2025A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Elgin fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Elgin Independent School District, Elgin, Texas, on November 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Allbright, Elgin Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2026A1.txt
  • and cites that correct Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. Because this procedure is applicable here, we find that SLD should have granted the appeal. We therefore reverse and remand Service Co-op's application for further consideration of FRN 171379 in light of Form 470 USCN 390330000120972. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 14, 2000 by Reg 6 & 8 Sw/Ctrl/W Srvc Co-op, Marshall, Minnesota, is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2027A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Renaissance fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Renaissance Charter School, Moscow, Idaho on March 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Kampenhout, Renaissance Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 20, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2028A1.txt
  • request. We are informed by SLD personnel that on March 28, 2001, SLD made the SPIN-change which Cleveland Municipal is seeking here. Because the Division finds that Cleveland Municipal has already received the relief that it is requesting, Cleveland Municipal's Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Cleveland Municipal School District on November 13, 2000, seeking review of FRN 418921, is DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-202A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 12, 2000, by Granville Public Schools, Granville, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Judith Ann Deutsch, Granville
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2037A1.txt
  • RAL on August 23, 1999. Therefore, SLD received the request for corrections 10 days after Hysham received the RAL. As a result, we find that Hysham's request for corrections to the RAL was timely because the corrections were received within two weeks of receipt of the RAL. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hysham Public Schools on August 3, 2000, IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2038A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by East Greenbush Central Schools, East Greenbush, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Donn F.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-203A1.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: January 26, 2001 Released: January 29, 2001 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 20, 2000, by Leon County Schools, Tallahassee, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William D. Piotrowski, Leon County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-204A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 28, 2000, by Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Winston E.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-205A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 13, 2000, by Pluralistic School, Santa Monica, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathleen Lenihan, Pluralistic School, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2063A1.txt
  • "in window" application. On February 2, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter to SEED School regarding the requests for discounts at issue in this Request for Review. Thus, upon review of the record, we find it is appropriate to dismiss SEED School's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by SEED School, Washington, DC on April 21, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Thomas J. Downey, SEED School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 21, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2065A1.txt
  • SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we remand to SLD for a determination of whether DeKalb had a pre-existing contract governing the FRNs at issue, and is eligible for discounts for those FRNs under program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 22, 2000, by DeKalb County School System, Decatur, Georgia, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review DeKalb's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-206A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Solon failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Solon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Solon City Schools, Solon, Ohio on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kirk B. Miller, Solon City Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-207A1.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because neither Scanlon or MetroCon filed an appeal of the February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss MetroCon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by MetroCon Communications, New York, New York on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Al Garcia, MetroCon Communications, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2085A1.txt
  • Letter, whether because of SLD's error or the applicant's, SLD will correct the SPIN upon written request and verification. Here, a written request was made, and we therefore remand this application to SLD to obtain verification and process the SPIN correction in accordance with its procedures. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Trussville Public Library, Birmingham, Alabama, on December 14, 1999, IS GRANTED, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Moody,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2086A1.txt
  • Chimes has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Chimes' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Chimes' initial appeal, Chimes may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chimes School, Baltimore, Marlyand, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Martin Lampner, Chimes School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000. See Letter from Martin Lampner,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2087A1.txt
  • for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, St. Jean Vianney fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Jean Vianney School, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 31, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patrice A. Robinson, St. Jean Vianney School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2097A1.txt
  • policies as well as program rules. Here, the necessity of replacing a sick employee skilled in the application process for the schools and libraries program provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Orleans Public Schools, New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 25, 2001, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alonzo R. Luce, New Orleans Public Schools, to Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2098A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2129A1.txt
  • provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. Because the record demonstrates that Bnos Yaakov received mail from SLD at the same address listed in the more detailed letter, we find no reason to deviate from this standard. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 28, 2000, by Congregation Bnos Yaakov, Lakewood, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, Congregation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-212A1.txt
  • (internal connections) being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand NAFC's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider NAFC's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by NAFC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on November 1, 1999 to reconsider the dismissal of the Appeal it filed on April 26, 2000 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Appeal filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2130A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because DeKalb failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss DeKalb's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by DeKalb Independent School District, DeKalb, Texas on September 4, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Timothy Williams, DeKalb Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 4, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2131A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Estelline failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Estelline's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Estelline School District 28-2, Estelline, South Dakota on August 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kristina Atyeo, Estelline School District 28-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2137A1.txt
  • for a retroactive waiver of the 30-day appeal deadline for Funding Year 1 applicants who filed untimely appeals, E-Rate Central's request that we also authorize new appeal funding procedures for these applicants is moot. We therefore dismiss this part of the Request for Waiver as well. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed E-Rate Central, Plandome, New York, on August 12, 1999, is DENIED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 12, 1999 (Request for Waiver).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-213A1.txt
  • that the SLD correctly determined that only 72 of Soille's students were eligible for the national school lunch program under the federal income eligibility guidelines. Thus, SLD properly found Soille eligible for a 50 percent discount for internal connections, and we find no merit in Solle's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 9, 2000 by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2185A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Watonwan fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Watonwan County Library, St. James, Minnesota, on July 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cheryl Bjoin, Watonwan County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2219A1.txt
  • received over 36,000 applications. It is impractical, if not impossible, for SLD to review each application and notify applicants of errors prior to the close of the filing window. The Division, therefore, finds that the applicant violated the 28-day waiting period and denies Washington's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David L. Bringman, Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2226A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 11, 2001, by City of Cameron, Cameron, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Janet Sheguit, City of Cameron,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2227A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Sealy failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sealy's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sealy Independent School District, Sealy, Texas on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosa Ojeda, Sealy Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2228A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 7, 2001, by Shelby City Schools, Shelby, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Keith Rittenhouse, Shelby City Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2229A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Cecelia failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Cecelia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Cecelia School, Clearwater, Florida on September 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ellen Patrick, St. Cecelia School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 12, 2001. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2230A1.txt
  • through the Tech Centers, had actual authority to act on behalf of the school districts listed in the consortium. We, therefore, remand Clackamas' application to SLD for further fact-finding. However, we make no determination has to whether any members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, on October 13, 2000, IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2233A1.txt
  • weeks before the filing window deadline. Furthermore, SLD provides alternative means for applicants to obtain forms, including having forms mailed to the applicants. Based on these facts, South Barber has failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would warrant treating South Barber differently by granting it a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 23, 2000 by South Barber Unified School District 255, Kiowa, Kansas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Bailey, South Barber Unified School District 255, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 23, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2241A1.txt
  • after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Haslett's request for funding and we therefore deny Haslett's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, on February 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Martell, Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2275A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Sacred Heart failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sacred Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sacred Heart Elementary School, San Francisco, California on September 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Savita Sahi, Sacred Heart Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2276A1.txt
  • 127047 because the record shows that Sperry failed to complete this application. Because there is no completed FCC Form 471 for application number 127045, and because Sperry has failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would so necessitate, a waiver of the filing window is not warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Sperry Public Schools, Sperry, Oklahoma, on October 7, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jobe, Sperry Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 7, 1999 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2290A1.txt
  • that SLD could have determined the city name of the billed entity. As a result, in these particular circumstances, we do not believe that the omission of the city of the billed entity in Block 1, item 4a should have prevented SLD from data entering AEPPR's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eduardo Delgado, Asociacion
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2292A1.txt
  • including the 28-day competitive bidding requirements. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. The Division, therefore, denies NYMA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York Military Academy, Hudson, New York, on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A FUNDING YEAR 2 DATE EVENT January 7, 1999 File FCC Form 470 FUNDING
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2293A1.txt
  • Because St. Francis de Sales failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Francis de Sales' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Francis de Sales School, Houston, Texas on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cathy Minar, St. Francis de Sales School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2328A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bear Lake fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bear Lake County Library District, Montpelier, Idaho, on November 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Nate, Bear Lake County Library District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2329A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Mississippi DOE failed to file an appeal of the July 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mississippi DOE's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mississippi Department of Education, Mississippi DOE, Mississippi on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Amory School District, Greenwood Springs, MS; Coahoma County School District, Clarksdale, MS; Lee County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2330A1.txt
  • website was incorrect. Thus, we find that SLD's posting of an incorrect zip code contributed to the untimely filing by West Las Vegas of its FCC Form 471. We therefore conclude that West Las Vegas has demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Las Vegas Schools, Las Vegas, New Mexico, on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process West Las Vegas's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2331A1.txt
  • the requests in Henry County's FCC Form 471 only posted a request for telecommunications services. The FRN at issue, FRN 276939, requests discounted internal connections. Because Henry County failed to post the service for which it seeks discounts, it did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henry County Board of Education, Abbeville, Alabama, on October 25, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Neil Dodson, Henry County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2332A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Midland fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Midland School District, Pleasant Plains, Arkansas, on February 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim LaRue, Midland School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2333A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Montville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Montville Township Public Schools, Montville, New Jersey, on March 23, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dominic J. Butler, Montville Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2362A1.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Center SD's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Center SD's initial appeal, it may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center School District, Kansas City, Missouri, on July 31, 2000 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bruce Rehmer, Center School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2372A1.txt
  • Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Elkhart has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed July 10, 2000 by Elkhart Community Schools, Elkhart, Indiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Woods, Elkhart Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2373A1.txt
  • Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Powell has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 3, 2000 by Powell County High School, Deer Lodge, Montana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph A. Brott, Powell County High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2398A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Belt Schools failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Belt Schools' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Belt Schools, Great Falls, Montana on September 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tom Glover, Belt Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2001. Letter from Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2399A1.txt
  • window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Garfield has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed April 17, 2000 by Garfield School District, Garfield, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Raymond Hryczyk, Garfield School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2400A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 28, 2001, by Hazelwood School District, Florissant, Missouri, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert J. Wukitsch, Hazelwood School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2401A1.txt
  • SLD should have notified Lettie Jensen of the signature deficiency in the form in time for Lettie Jensen to submit an in-window FCC Form 471 that complied with the competitive bidding rules. We therefore further find that good cause exists to grant Lettie Jensen's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lettie W. Jensen Library, Amherst, Wisconsin, on February 26, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and Lettie Jensen's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2422A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Elizabeth failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Elizabeth's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Elizabeth Board of Education, Elizabeth, New Jersey on September 27, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph Pellegrino, Elizabeth Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2423A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Leon County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Leon County's initial request, Leon County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Leon County Schools, Tallahassee, Florida, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from William D. Piotrowski, Leon County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 27, 2001. Leon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2424A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Mid-Peninsula failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mid-Peninsula's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mid-Peninsula Library Cooperative, Kingsford, Michigan on September 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Brewer, Mid-Peninsula Library Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 17, 2001. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2453A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 9, 2001, by Deep River-Millersburg Community School District, Millersburg, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Carol Montz, Deep
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2454A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because McClave failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss McClave's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by McClave School District RE-2, McClave, Colorado on September 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry M. Weber, McClave School District RE-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2455A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Saint Patrick failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Saint Patrick's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Patrick School, Stoneham, Massachusetts on October 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cecilia Phelan, Saint Patrick School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9, 2001. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2456A1.txt
  • Finally, SLD correctly determined that MHT was not eligible for internal connections. In Funding Year 3, internal connections were funded for schools and libraries with at least an 82% discount rate. MHT was entitled to only an 80% discount rate. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 29, 2001, by the Most Holy Trinity School, Brooklyn, New York is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Philip McHugh, Most Holy Trinity School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 22, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2457A1.txt
  • for cellular phone service should be granted. Aside from finding that cellular phone service requests are requests for basic voice telephone service, entitled to a separate necessary resources review, we offer no opinion as to whether the particular cellular requests at issue here are entitled to funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by United Talmudical Academy is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eugene Sander, United Talmudical
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-24A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Columbia failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Columbia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Columbia Public Library, Columbia, Pennsylvania on October 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert V. McCarthy, Columbia Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2518A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 17, 2001, by Rochester Public Schools, Rochester, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Daniel Cincoski, Rochester Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2519A1.txt
  • the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. Specifically, Bibb requests that the invoices be considered as timely filed. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Bibb's request to waive the invoice deadline. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Bibb's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2000, by Bibb County Public Schools, Macon, Georgia IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Julie K. Christopher, Bibb County Public Schools, Macon, Georgia, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2520A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts in its name. Here, East Brunswick fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find an insufficient basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by East Brunswick Public Schools, East Brunswick, New Jersey, on March 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jamie Savedoff, East Brunswick Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2521A1.txt
  • for Reviews with the Administrator. The Commission's rules regarding appeals of SLD decisions do not contemplate simultaneous requests to the Commission and the Administrator. In this case, because St. Mary Magdalen filed concurrent appeals, we dismiss St. Mary Magdalen's Requests for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by St. Mary Magdalen, Brentwood, Missouri, on May 19, 1999, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Chris Rosenthal, St. Mary Magdalen, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2522A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bellevue fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bellevue Public Library, Bellevue, Iowa, on February 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marian L. Meyer, Bellevue Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2523A1.txt
  • access service and internal connections within a single funding request, SLD correctly placed the entire funding request into the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding. Because Elmont is not entitled to internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3, we must deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Elmont Public Library, Elmont, New York, on February 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Frank Marino, Elmont Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2524A1.txt
  • Commitment Decision Letter was August 7, 2001 and because Grandview filed an appeal of the SLD decision on August 27, 2001, we find that SLD incorrectly denied Grandview's appeal as untimely. Accordingly, we grant Grandview's Request for Review and direct SLD to review Grandview's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Grandview Independent School District, Grandview, Texas on September 4, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn Whitaker, Grandview Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2525A1.txt
  • Year 3 was only 58% based on the National School Lunch Program discount matrix. Due to demand in Funding Year 3, only schools eligible for an 82% discount or higher received discounts for internal connections. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly denied funding for the entire request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mankato Area Public Schools, Mankato, Minnesota, on March 12, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Douglas Johnson, Mankato Area Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 12, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2526A1.txt
  • Therefore, we conclude that, under SLD's applicable Funding Year 3 review procedures, it correctly placed FRN 408532 in the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding. Because North East is not eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3, we affirm SLD's denial of funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North East Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, on April 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Emilienburg, North East Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2527A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Forest District fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Forest Municipal School District, Forest, Mississippi, on August 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Ed Leonard, Forest Municipal School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2528A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Lake Eola fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lake Eola Charter School, Orlando, Florida, on November 8, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sharon Morell, Lake Eola Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 8, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2531A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Paso Robles' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Paso Robles' initial request, Paso Robles may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Paso Robles Public Schools, Paso Robles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Laurie Crowe, Paso Robles Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2535A1.txt
  • a rubber stamp signature is a binding act that signifies the intent of the party to be bound by the program rules. Based on this analysis, an original stamped signature meets the minimum processing standard for an original ink signature. We therefore grant its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 31, 2000 by Caribou Regional Technology Center, Caribou, Maine IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to USAC for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn McNeal, Caribou Regional Technology Center, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2536A1.txt
  • failure to timely file its FCC Form 471 within the filing window. The record demonstrates that SLD's actions led New Hartford to file an out of window FCC Form 471. We find it appropriate to waive the filing window deadline for Funding Year 1 for New Hartford. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 10, 2000 by New Hartford Central School District, New Hartford, New York IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to USAC for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Dieso, New Hartford Central
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2537A1.txt
  • the required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that Trico has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 30, 2000 by Trico Community Unit District #176, Campbell Hill, Illinois IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dennis Smith, Trico Community Unit School District #176, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2575A1.txt
  • support application process in an efficient and effective manner, including procedures for the review of applications and the implementation of the Commission's rules of priority. We find that, for the reasons discussed above, SLD's operating procedure for mixed priority requests was a reasonable exercise of its authority. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Grand School - SAD #14, Danforth, Maine, on March 16, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from William T. Dobbins, East Grand School - SAD #14, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2576A1.txt
  • 338410 should therefore be fully funded. However, the fact that it has a technology plan now, does not satisfy the program requirement that Franklin have a technology plan in place at the time of its application. Therefore, we find no basis for granting Franklin's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Franklin Public Schools, Franklin, Wisconsin, on May 7, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kaye Hernon, Franklin Public School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 7, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2577A1.txt
  • connections request. As noted above, in Funding Year 3, funding of discounted internal connections was available only for schools with discount rates of 82% or higher. Because Karval had a discount rate of only 70%, it was not eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Karval School District RE 23, Karval, Colorado, on March 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ashley A. Anderson, Karval School District RE 23, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2578A1.txt
  • router and CSU/DSU, SLD correctly classified the funding request as internal connections. In Funding Year 3, only applicants with an 82% discount or higher received internal connections. Merrimack was entitled to a 44% discount under the discount matrix. We therefore conclude that FRN 338072 was correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Merrimack Valley Library Consortium, Andover, Massachusetts, on February 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bill B. Manson, Merrimack Valley Library Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-25A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-25A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-25A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 10, 2000, by Lake Havasu Unified School District, Lake Havasu City, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Barbara
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2638A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Tariff Affiliates failed to file an appeal of the October 13, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Tariff Affiliates' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tariff Affiliates, Inc., Fairport, New York on June 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Fish, Tariff Affiliates, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 11, 2001. Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2639A1.txt
  • It is well established law that the absence of official record of an event is the evidence of the non-occurrence of the event. The proffered copy of the April 30, 2001 letter, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that an appeal was timely filed with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Whitehall District Schools, Whitehall, Michigan on August 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Decker, Whitehall District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16, 2001. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2640A1.txt
  • SLD processed applications with 14 or more digits. Our decision today does not prohibit SLD from establishing minimum processing standards relating to FCC Form 470 Application Numbers in the future. Our decision is directed only at the consistent treatment of applications under the minimum processing standards. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pediatric Library, Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital Ballard Community School District, Cleveland, Ohio, on June 21, 2000 IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED for further processing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by St. John the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2641A1.txt
  • should therefore have been considered. Accordingly, we remand the application to SLD to address the eligibility of FRN 437000 in light of the information submitted on appeal. In doing so, we make no determination as to whether FRN 437000 seeks support for an eligible product or service. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pope Blanche Elementary School, Waimanalo, Hawaii, filed on April 25, 2001, IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Les Goto,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2642A1.txt
  • Lakeshore has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to cover for the administrative facilitator's absence to minimize or avoid the late filing. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Lakeshore's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lakeshore Public Academy, Hart, Michigan on October 9, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2643A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Mary O'Brien failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mary O'Brien's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mary C. O'Brien Accomodation School District, Florence, Arizona on September 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jack W. Harmon, Mary C. O'Brien Accomodation School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2644A1.txt
  • Wapanucka has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Wapanucka's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Wapanucka's initial request, Wapanucka may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wapanucka Public Schools, Wapanucka, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Max Rowland, Wapanucka Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 24, 2001 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2646A1.txt
  • require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Bais Yaakov's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bais Yaakov High School of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri on September 17, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2647A1.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Louisville failed to file an appeal of the July 26, 2001 Funding Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Louisville's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Louisville Public Library, Louisville, Nebraska on October 9, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ruth Ann Hlavac, Louisville Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2648A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Northeastern failed to file an appeal of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Northeastern's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19, Archbald, Pennsylvania on January 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brian R. Dolan, Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2649A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 3, 2000, by St. Raymond Regional School, Villas, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Harry J. Rock, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 3, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2692A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bethlehem Area's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bethlehem Area's initial request, Bethlehem Area may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bethlehem Area School District, Bethlehem Area, Pennsylvania, on October 15, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Scott Garrigan, Bethlehem Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2694A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Lincoln's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and Request for Waiver filed on September 20, 2001, by Lincoln Elementary School District No. 27, Lincoln, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Ann Gleason and Dr. Robert E. Kidd,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2696A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Pinellas's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and the Request for Waiver filed on September 19, 2000, by Pinellas County Schools, Largo, Florida ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Shannon Eddinger, Pinellas County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2697A1.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Potter Valley's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and the Request for Waiver filed on October 9, 2001, by Potter Valley Community Unified School District, Potter Valley, California ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gail Albin, Potter Valley Community Unified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2698A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 22, 2000, by Somerton School District No. 11, Somerton, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert W. Cassidy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2699A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 12, 2000, by Somerton School District No. 11, Somerton, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert W. Cassidy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-26A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lakeview failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lakeview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lakeview Community Schools, Columbus, Nebraska on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kurt Harrison, Lakeview Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2700A1.txt
  • to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. Here, Trinity fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Trinity Area School District, Washington, Pennsylvania, on February 22, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James R. Shargots, Trinity Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2701A1.txt
  • application numbers 244469 and 244568, Washington Community may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. For these reasons, with respect to SLD application numbers 244469 and 244568, we dismiss Washington Community's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington Community School District, Washington, Iowa, on September 24, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN PART and IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kevin Posekany,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2706A1.txt
  • that correct FCC Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. Because this procedure is applicable here, we find that SLD should have reviewed the funding requests in light of the new FCC Form 470 USCN numbers. We therefore reverse and remand the pending applications for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 9, 2000 by Wayland Free Library, Wayland, New York, IS GRANTED and this application IS REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed on July 12, 2000 by South
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2749A1.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Prospect's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 2, 2000, by Prospect School District 59, Prospect, Oregon and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2750A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Winnebago fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its applications. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Winnebago Public Schools, Winnebago, Nebraska on June 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Raymond Girard, Winnebago Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 16, 2000 (Waiver Request). Id. 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2766A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 27, 2001, by Blessed Sacrament - St. Gabriel High School, New Rochelle, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Edward Sullivan, Blessed Sacrament - St. Gabriel High School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2767A1.txt
  • because Washington has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Washington's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Washington's request, it may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 9, 2001 by Washington County Public Schools, Abingdon, Virginia, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Luker, Washington County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2768A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 20, 2001, by Waukegan Public Schools, Waukegan, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judith M. Green, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 20, 2001 (Request for Review). See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2769A1.txt
  • agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, West Jasper fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Jasper School District, Bay Springs, Mississippi, on May 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Mary Walters and George Duke, West Jasper School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2770A1.txt
  • for internal connections. In Funding Year 3, internal connections were funded for schools and libraries with at least an 82% discount rate. The record demonstrates that Boone was entitled to only a 75% discount rate based on the discount matrix. We therefore deny Boone's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 19, 2000, by Boone County School District, Madison, West Virginia is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary D. Sumpter, Boone County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 19, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2771A1.txt
  • real-time voice or video over IP (VoIP), if otherwise eligible, are eligible for discount.'' Because this eligibility standard was not in place at the time of SLD's prior decision, we remand the application to SLD for review of FRN 221270 consistent with the revised eligible services list. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Everett School District #2 on May 22, 2000 is GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further action. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ken Toyn, Everett School District No. 2, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2795A1.txt
  • Children's Home's Appeal to SLD state that the software is ``required'' for the servers, and that it consists of operational software including ``NT Server'' and ``Web Server.'' Based on this documentation, we find that the software is eligible for discounts. We therefore grant the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Children's Home Society, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on March 21, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2796A1.txt
  • the standards articulated in Naperville. Although Item 22, Block 5, was a new information request in Funding Year 3, Item 1 of Block 1, the Billed Entity, was not new. Thus, the first requirement of Naperville is not satisfied. Accordingly, we affirm SLD's rejection of the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Crawford County Public Library, English, Indiana, on August 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lloyd A. Hamlin, King and Queen County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2797A1.txt
  • the entire request could have been avoided by submitting two separate funding requests, one for the Priority One services, and the second for the Priority Two services. Through that method, Worcester can, in the future, obtain virtually all of the benefit of choosing the more economical solution. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Worcester Public Schools, Worcester, New York, on March 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John F. Burke, Worcester Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2798A1.txt
  • year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures."). 21242 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2798 within the window. Here, Peru Central fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Peru Central School, Peru, New York, on June 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert 0 Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau 21243
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-27A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Matawan-Aberdeen failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Matawan-Aberdeen's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, Matawan, New Jersey on November 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland R. Pare, Ed.D, Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2800A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Bnos Zion fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnos Zion of Bobov, Inc., Brooklyn, New York October 31, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2801A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Buffalo fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo Public Library, Buffalo, Oklahoma on October 10, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2802A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Colusa fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Colusa Unified School District, Colusa, California September 24, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2803A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Edgerton fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Edgerton Public School, Edgerton, Minnesota, on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from LeRoy Domagala, Edgerton Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2804A1.txt
  • rule. Because Helena provides documentation indicating that SLD would have received the application before the end of the filing window for Funding Year 2 if the postal service had delivered it to the correct address, we find that good cause exists to grant Helena's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Helena Township Public Library, Alden, Michigan on July 31, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and Helena's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2805A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Johnson fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Johnson Elementary School, Johnson, Vermont on October 15, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2806A1.txt
  • the 28 days required by the Commission's rule before signing contracts and submitting FCC Form 471s. Because there was evidence within the applications to support the pending Requests for Review, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand the two pending applications for further consideration. 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 22 Nashua Request for Review at 2; Hudson Request for Review at 2. 23 Nashua Request for Review at 2, attach. 3b. 24 FCC Form 470, Nashua Public Library, filed December 21, 1999, at 1 (indicating allowable contract date of December 18, 2000). 25 Hudson Request for Review at 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2807A1.txt
  • a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Because Sacramento provides evidence that it postmarked its application within the filing window, we find that good cause exists to grant Sacramento's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento, California on August 3, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Sacramento's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2808A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sargent School District RE-33J, Monte Vista, Colorado, on March 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronna Cochran, Sargent School District RE-33J, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2809A1.txt
  • procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, South Kingstown fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by South Kingstown Public Library, Peace Dale, Rhode Island, on July 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Connie Lachowicz, South Kingstown Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2810A1.txt
  • require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Starr King-Edison has failed to demonstrate good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief, and therefore, we deny Starr King-Edison's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Starr King-Edison Academy, Long Beach, California on October 18, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-285A1.txt
  • specify what additional information was required for the application. We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the record does not show that SLD adequately communicated the nature of the requested information to St. Stanislaus. Accordingly, we remand St. Stanislaus' application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the St. Stanislaus Kostka School, Chicago, Illinois on May 15, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review St. Stanislaus' funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2875A1.txt
  • place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. Here, Netherlands Christian fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Netherlands Reformed Christian School, Pompton Plains, New Jersey, on September 4, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John W. Van Der Brink, Netherlands Reformed Christian School, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2877A1.txt
  • Saranac has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Saranac's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Saranac's initial request, Saranac may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saranac Central School, Saranac, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Larry Garrow, Saranac Central School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 26, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-28A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 17, 2000, by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Perry W. Polk,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2953A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Algonquin Regional High School, Northborough, Massachusetts, on October 3, 2001, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Melican, Algonquin Regional High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 3, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2954A1.txt
  • deny Taylor County's applications for funding requested by SLD application numbers 241393, 241462, 245426 and 245519, we dismiss that request without further consideration because Taylor County failed to seek review of the Administrator's decisions from the Commission within the 30 day period set forth in our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Taylor County Board of Education, Campbellsville, Kentucky on September 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda E. Beal, Taylor County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2955A1.txt
  • Only applicants with a discount rate of 82% or higher were eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3. BECPL had a discount rate of only 60%. Because BECPL is not eligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 3, we affirm SLD's denial of funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie County Public Library, Buffalo, New York, on March 27, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Buffalo
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2956A1.txt
  • the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Finley-Sharon has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 7, 2000 by Finley-Sharon Public School, Finley, North Dakota IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lee E. Kelm, Finley-Sharon Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 7, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2957A1.txt
  • Year 3 FCC Form 471 be considered as timely filed. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved funding for Hayti's Funding Year 3 application, and such funds were not revoked or suspended. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Hayti's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 29, 2000 by Hayti School District, Hayti, Missouri, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sue Reynolds, Hayti School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 29, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2958A1.txt
  • the policy adopted in Funding Year 3 was reasonable. Further, because Kansas filed the pending application in Funding Year 3, it is properly subject to the procedures in place for Funding Year 3. We therefore decline to reverse SLD based on its adoption of a new procedure. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Kansas Public Schools, Kansas, Oklahoma, on March 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ingersoll, Kansas Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 2, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2959A1.txt
  • deviation from Commission rules regarding the discount level received by participants in the universal service mechanism for schools and libraries. Thus, to the extent Lake County seeks a waiver of our rules, Lake County has failed to meet its burden, and thus such request is also denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Lake County School District, Tavares, Florida, February 9, 2001, February 23, 2001, March 20, 2001 and April 14, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Coggshall, Lake County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2960A1.txt
  • is inadmissible on appeal to correct data included in the original application. Here, as noted above, FRN 322733 specified that it was seeking tariffed services not supported by a contract. Thus, evidence to demonstrate that the service is supported by a contract is not admissible on appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Newton Community School District, Newton, Iowa, on March 6, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Pederson, Newton Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2961A1.txt
  • to its Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471. However, the record reflects that the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company provided discounts to Nogales/Santa Cruz for its Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471. We therefore dismiss Nogales/Santa Cruz's Waiver Request as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Nogales/Santa Cruz County Public Library, Nogales, Arizona, on July 25, 2000, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Suzanne Haddock, Nogales/Santa Cruz County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2962A1.txt
  • timely and complete requests for discounts on its behalf. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline in these circumstances and, therefore, we deny Parrottsville's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Parrottsville Community Library, Parrottsville, Tennessee, June 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judy Myers, Parrottsville Community Library, Parrottsville, Tennessee, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 16, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2963A1.txt
  • and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Smackover fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Smackover Public Schools, Smackover, Arkansas, on July 18, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leland Watts, Smackover Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 18, 2000 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2964A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 11, 2001, by Fairhill School, Dallas, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Wade Mercer, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11, 2001 (Request for Review). See id.; Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2966A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Island Park's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Island Park's initial request, Island Park may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Island Park Library Friends, Inc., Macks Inn, Idaho, on August 13, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Genevieve Prahasto, Island Park Library Friends, Inc., to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2967A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it must be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Orange City Christian School, Orange City, Iowa, on May 7, 2001, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paula Ribbens, Orange City Christian School to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 7,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2968A1.txt
  • Knowlton has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Knowlton's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Knowlton's initial request, Knowlton may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Knowlton Township Board of Education, Delaware, New Jersey, on July 30, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eva Kunz, Knowlton Township Board of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2978A1.txt
  • had postmarked their FCC Forms 471 at least three days before the filing window deadline, or that they mailed the forms via guaranteed overnight courier at least one day before the deadline, will be deemed to have filed their FCC Forms 471 within the filing window. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the following Waiver Requests ARE REMANDED TO SLD for further review consistent with this opinion: Hardee County School Board, Wauchula, Florida, filed August 28, 2000; Goldennet Educational Technology Alliance, Bakersfield, California, filed June 2, 2000; St. Michael Elementary School, Hastings, Nebraska, filed July 18, 2000; Concordia Parish
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-29A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 16, 2000, by New Brighton Area School District, New Brighton, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce P.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-30A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because New Hampshire School failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Hampshire School's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53, Pembroke, New Hampshire on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary I. Rubega, New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-314A1.txt
  • applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Given Yeshiva's failure to certify the Form 471 subsequent to the required posting period, SLD properly denied the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, Brooklyn, New York, filed April 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alter Obermeister, Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 11, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-315A1.txt
  • was for tariffed services, such services must be re-bid every year because they do not fall under the limited exemptions from competitive bidding. Therefore, because Thomas Crane did not seek competitive bids for Funding Year 2, we find that SLD correctly denied Thomas Crane's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 10, 2000 Request for Review filed by Thomas Crane Public Library, Quincy, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jody Parsley, Thomas Crane Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-316A1.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Ashby's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 4, 2001, by Ashby Public Schools, Ashby, Minnesota IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Renee Melby, Ashby Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 4, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-317A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 1, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-318A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 13, 2000, by Daingerfield-Lone Star Independent School District, Daingerfield, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard Woods, Daingerfield-Lone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-319A1.txt
  • as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because Hawthorn failed to timely appeal the April 14, 2000 decision to either the Commission or SLD, the Requests for Review will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed November 17, 2000, and December 4, 2000, by Hawthorn School District 73 District, Hawthorn, Illinois, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co.,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-31A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 30, 2000, by Newport Public School District, Newport, Rhode Island, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Alan Kritz, Newport
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-320A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 7, 1999, by Peach Public Libraries, Fort Valley, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Billy Tripp, Peach Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-321A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Windham failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Windham's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Windham Public Schools, Windham, Connecticut on January 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Millie C. Wheeler, Windham Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 3, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-324A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 22, 2000, by Half Hollow Hills School District, Dix Hills, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Charles
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-32A1.txt
  • Sanger has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sanger's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sanger's initial appeal, Sanger may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Sanger Unified School District, Sanger, California, on October 23, 2000, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kim Jacobsen, Sanger Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-33A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ana failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ana's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on October 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-34A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Tuckahoe Union failed to file an appeal of the September 15, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Tuckahoe Union's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tuckahoe Union Free School District, Eastchester, New York on October 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael V. Yazurlo, Ed.D, Tuckahoe Union Free School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-350A1.txt
  • In other instances where SLD has failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Adams Twelve's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, Northglenn, Colorado, on April 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Adams Twelve's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-351A1.txt
  • eliminate any incentive to avoid including ineligible expenses in their funding requests. This would significantly increase the administrative burden SLD would face while carrying out its obligation to guard against the occurrence of errors and fraud. Therefore, we cannot permit Cheney to amend its FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 16, 2000, by Cheney Public Schools, Cheney, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Cheney School District No. 360, filed May 16, 2000 (Request for Review). See Letter from Schools and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-352A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Flour Bluff Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, April 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Darrell Earwood, Flour Bluff Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-353A1.txt
  • and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Pioneerland's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Pioneerland's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by Pioneerland. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), section 1.113 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.113, IS WAIVED to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Pioneerland Library System, Willmar, Minnesota, on June 25, 1999,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-354A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Crown King's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Crown King's initial request, Crown King may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Crown King Public Library, Crown King, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Susan Hite, Crown King Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-355A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Dietrich failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Dietrich's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dietrich School District No. 314, Dietrich, Idaho on January 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Peter M. Bolz, Sr., Dietrich School District No. 314, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-356A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Grant County failed to file an appeal of the August 31, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Grant County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Grant County Education Service District, Canyon City, Oregon on May 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Coffey, Grant County Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-357A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Highway Christian's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Highway Christian's initial request, Highway Christian may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Highway Christian Academy, New York City, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Darren Page, Highway Christian Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-358A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because St. Pius V failed to file an appeal of the October 5, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Pius V's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Pius V Parish School, Jacksonville, Florida on January 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elise Kennedy, St. Pius V Parish School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-373A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because USD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss USD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Unified School District #214, Ulysses, Kansas on February 5, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joe Breeden, Unified School District #214, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 5, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-387A1.txt
  • Request For Proposal (RFP) for the original services. Accordingly, we conclude that LAUSD's request for a service change should be considered by SLD in accordance with this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and the Commission's rules, sections 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, 47 U.S.C. §§ 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Guidance by the Universal Service Administrative Company concerning the Request of Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, filed on February 9, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau USAC Letter from D. Scott Barash to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-411A1.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Acadia Parish's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Acadia Parish's use of its remote access router to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Acadia Parish School Board 5, Crowley, Louisiana, on May 26, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Acadia Parish's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-412A1.txt
  • for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Antioch seeks support for tariffed services and for contracts entered into in April and July of 1999. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Antioch's requests for support. The Division, therefore, denies Antioch's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Antioch Unified School District, Antioch, California, on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael Gudjohnsen, Director of Purchasing, Antioch Unified School District Purchasing Department, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-420A1.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Buffalo and Erie's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts, and consequently, whether maintenance and memory upgrades of such routers are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie County Public Library on May 19, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Buffalo's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-433A1.txt
  • only asserts that service will commence on or after the date of the letter. Consequently, we find Livingston Parish's argument unpersuasive and in the absence of other evidence in the record we find that the Applicant violated the 28-day waiting period with regard to the Com-Net vendor. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Livingston Parish School District, Livingston Louisiana, on May 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Rogers Pope, Livingston Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-434A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Los Angeles Unified's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Los Angeles Unified's initial request, Los Angeles Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Catherine Banker, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-435A1.txt
  • that comprise a single school would generally be considered internal connections rather than part of a WAN. Nothing in the record before us indicates whether the other building is an instructional building comprising part of the same school. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Solomon Schechter School of Greater Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, on May 4, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Solomon Schechter's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-44A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-44A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-44A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Austin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Austin Independent School District, Austin, Texas, on May 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pascal D. Forgione, Austin Independent School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 12, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-45A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-45A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-45A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Baldwin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Baldwin Public Library, Baldwin, New York, on May 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Hopkins, Baldwin Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 31, 2000 (Letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-463A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Los Angeles Unified's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Los Angeles Unified's initial request, Los Angeles Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Catherine Banker, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-464A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 19, 2000, by Salem County Vocational Technical Schools, Woodstown, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Esther R. Pennell,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-46A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Lakeside's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Lakeside Youth Services, Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania, on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Lakeside Youth Services), to the Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-47A1.txt
  • Harbor's request for services to SLD's website. The contracts for which Oak Harbor seeks support, however, do not meet either of the limited exceptions for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Oak Harbor's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 13, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Oak Harbor School District No. 201, Oak Harbor, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce E. Worley, Oak Harbor School District No. 201, to the Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-48A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-48A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-48A1.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Wells' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Wells Public Library, Wells, Maine, on June 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sandra Broomfield, Wells Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed June 9, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-506A1.txt
  • and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. For that reason, Petersburg's Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petersburg City Public Schools, dated June 6, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Herbert H. Morris, Petersburg Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 6, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-516A1.txt
  • substantially complete.'' Upon review of the record in each of the Requests for Review, we conclude that each presents circumstances factually similar to those in Naperville and meets the standards articulated in Naperville. Accordingly, we remand the applications to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul A. Mulder, Allendale Public Schools, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-523A1.txt
  • rule. Caribou's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Caribou from having to comply with our policies regarding ineligible services. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Caribou School District, Caribou, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn McNeal, Caribou Regional School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 18, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-524A1.txt
  • funded. Given the volume of applications that SLD reviews every year, it is critical that applicants follow instructions and seek support only for eligible services, so that the program can effectively target funds to those services that can be supported. Ultimately, this benefits deserving schools and libraries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 7, 2000, Request for Review filed by Maine School Administrative District #49, Fairfield, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Maine School Administrative District #49 of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-525A1.txt
  • Because ineligible equipment constituted more than thirty percent of St. Landry's original funding request, and in light of the prohibition against allowing applicants to amend their applications once the filing window has closed, we affirm SLD's decision to reject St. Landry's funding request in its entirety. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 28, 2000, by St. Landry Parish School District, Opelousas, Louisiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lanny Moreau, St. Landry Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-585A1.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. Allowing applicants who fail to follow program rules to amend their applications prejudices other applicants who properly completed their applications and sought only eligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 12, 1999, by Caddo Parish School Board, Shreveport, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-586A1.txt
  • employees, grounds/maintenance workers, and food service/warehouse workers, which are clearly ineligible for funding under the program rules because they fail to serve an educational purpose. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, deny Rockwood's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 12, 2000, by Rockwood School District R 6, Eureka, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Wester, Rockwood School District R 6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-587A1.txt
  • failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Springfield's application to SLD for further consideration under applicable program rules and policies. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 18, 2000 by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Springfield's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-588A1.txt
  • Heights' Request for Review seeking to use this method must be denied. In addition, we reject Western Heights' assertion that this appeal raises a novel issue of policy which must be considered by the full Commission, because as noted above, the Commission has already addressed the issue. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Western Heights School District, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on July 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request For Review by John D. Harrington, Funds for Learning, on behalf of Western Heights School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-648A1.txt
  • in its application, we find that the ineligible services requested in FRN 264664 totals less than 30 percent of the total request. We therefore remand Boston Public Library's application to SLD for further consideration and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library, Boston, Massachusetts, on June 5, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent described herein, and is otherwise DENIED. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-649A1.txt
  • to require an applicant to be responsible for providing sufficient information in its FCC Form 471 to enable SLD to determine whether the requested services are eligible. In the absence of such information, we believe that SLD was justified in concluding that this request should be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library on May 30, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as discussed herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-650A1.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie I directly applies and on remand, SLD should review the capabilities and actual use of the Cisco 2501 routers in question to determine whether these routers are discount eligible and consequently, whether the requested operating system and memory upgrades are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie Public Library on July 11, 2000 is GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-652A1.txt
  • and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. We therefore deny Paducah's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 7, 2000, by Paducah Public Schools, Paducah, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Nelson, Paducah Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for Review). Letter from Schools
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-653A1.txt
  • administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service funds to eligible services only. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 12, 2000 Request for Review filed by Pike County School District, Troy, Alabama, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sherry A. Key and Dr. John R. Key, Pike County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-654A1.txt
  • requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, affirm SLD's decision to deny Portland's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Portland Public Schools, Portland, Oregon, on February 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Chris Bronsema, Portland Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2000 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-655A1.txt
  • otherwise been entitled, and because there is no evidence in SLD's records that Visitation attempted to correct this error at any time prior to approval, we conclude that SLD correctly affirmed its funding commitment based on the total pre-discount cost reported in the applicant's FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Visitation Academy, dated May 24, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John H. Leaman, Visitation Academy, Bay City, Michigan, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 24, 2000 (Request for Review). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-65A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-65A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-65A1.txt
  • applicants provide accurate information regarding funding requests. The Administrator must be able to reasonably estimate the total demand for support submitted by applicants during each filing period in order to make determinations regarding the availability of funding. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly denied Carl Schurz's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School on May 23, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 23, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-736A1.txt
  • service provider taking part in the bidding process, SLD reasonably determined that the Commission's competitive bidding rules were violated under the precedent established in Mastermind. Therefore, SLD properly removed the relevant Forms 470 off its web-site and denied the funding requests in the associated Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by A. R. Carethers SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Applegate Adventist Academy on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Berean SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-773A1.txt
  • 471 filing deadline. The record shows that Audrey Pack complied with the program's requirements in providing additional information to SLD on December 13, 2000. Thus, the untimely posting of the FCC Form 470 is not attributable to Audrey Pack. We therefore grant Audrey Pack's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Audrey Pack Memorial Library, Spring City, Tennessee on July 3, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process Audrey Pack's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-774A1.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Bibb's request to change service providers. On March 12, 2001, Bibb filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Bibb's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Bibb's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Bibb County Board of Education, Centreville, Alabama, on March 12, 2001 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-775A1.txt
  • that includes both eligible and ineligible products. Given Commission rules and precedent, SLD properly denied Fairfax's entire funding request. Therefore, SLD clearly has authority, under these limited circumstances, to deny funding requests that include both eligible and ineligible services, and we reject Fairfax's claims to the contrary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 22, 2000 by Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Fairfax County Public Library, of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-776A1.txt
  • also emphasized that ``your response on [the Item 22 Review] worksheets should represent the total of all of the resources available in all of the eligible entities covered by your request.'' Because CMCC failed to comply with these clear directives, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Central Minnesota Computing Center, filed October 13, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael T. Bauer, Central Minnesota Computer Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 13, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-777A1.txt
  • additional administrative burdens. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We therefore deny St. John's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John the Baptist School, Petersburg, Nebraska on May 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Reicks, St. John the Baptist School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-778A1.txt
  • of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). The Commission's rules provide that requests for review of decisions issued by the Administrator shall be considered and acted upon by the Common Carrier Bureau, except that requests which raise novel questions of fact, law or policy shall be considered by the full Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). Request for Review by Copan 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-26231, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, 15 FCC Rcd 5498, ¶ 1 (rel. 2000) (Copan Order). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services Requested and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-793A1.txt
  • Therefore, we disagree with SLD's assessment that well over 30 % of the funding request is ineligible under program rules. Accordingly, we grant Chelmsford's request for review and remand its application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider this FRN consistent with program rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 22, 2000, by Chelmsford Public School District, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and remanded to the Schools and Libraries Division. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chelmsford's funding application and to issue a revised
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-794A1.txt
  • only $18,000. The information provided by CVA indicates that CVA's available technological and budgetary resources were inadequate, thus CVA failed to demonstrate that it possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny CVA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 26, 2000, by the Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Monte Nardy, Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed October 26, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-795A1.txt
  • to post them to its web site in a timely manner causing the waiting period to extend past the filing window deadline. In this instance, however, Henderson's defective Form 470, not SLD, caused the posting delay. Therefore, a waiver of the Commission's rules is not warranted. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Country Library System, Watertown, New York, on behalf of Henderson Free Library, Henderson, New York, on June 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Yvonne Reff, North Country
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-796A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Little Miami failed to file an appeal of the August 10, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Little Miami's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Little Miami Local School District, Morrow, Ohio on May 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Long, Little Miami Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-797A1.txt
  • it assigned a ``$0'' amount to the ``[i]nstallation of telephone wiring'' identified in an attachment to its FCC Form 471. Manhasset's application supports SLD's determination that wiring costs included in Manhattan's FCC Form 471 are attributable to an ineligible product rather than to eligible telephone wiring. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2000, by Manhasset Union Free School District, Westbury, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-798A1.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Here, New Albany's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, New Albany, Indiana, on May 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dennis A. Cahill, New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-833A1.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Hood River's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Hood River's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hood River County School District on May 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Hood River's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-834A1.txt
  • pursuant to existing, binding contracts. Accordingly, SLD posted those services on its website for competitive bidding. Mobile did not wait 28 days before renewing an agreement with a service provider, and did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. The Division, therefore, denies Mobile's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mobile County Public School System, Mobile, Alabama, on August 3, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Margaret Blake, Mobile County Public School System, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-852A1.txt
  • than five times as many computer ports as available computers. We find that neither BTCS nor Total Communications USA demonstrated to SLD that BTCS possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny BTCS's request for review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bethlehem Temple Christian School, Duquesne, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Benjamin J. Aron, Schwaninger & Associates, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8, 1999 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-853A1.txt
  • have the necessary resources to make effective use of the services and connections it requested. Therefore, we find no merit in Laurel Hall's argument to the contrary. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on January 14, 2000 by the Laurel Hall School, Hagerstown, Maryland, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of Benjamin J. Aron, Counsel, Laurel Hall School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-854A1.txt
  • contracts for bidding, we must reject Mercer County's argument that this form has satisfied its competitive bidding obligations on the relevant requests. Instead, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Mercer County for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County School District on June 7, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Mercer County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-855A1.txt
  • as a waiver of the 30-day rule, because SLD has no authority to make such a waiver. Since Mass. DOE is not entitled to relief even when the merits are considered, we need not decide whether it would be appropriate to grant a waiver of section 54.720. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 5, 2000 by Massachusetts Department of Education, Malden, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Fuller, Massachusetts Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 5, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-873A1.txt
  • governing the calculation of discount rates. As in Hamilton County School Board, SLD has properly applied the Commission's rules and the program's procedures. These applicants' challenge to the fairness of the rules is properly initiated by filing a petition for rulemaking, rather than a Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Calhoun County School District on August 10, 2000; by Craig City School District on May 17, 2000; by Holmes County School District on May 8, 2000; by Jackson County School Board on May 12, 2000; by Lake County Schools on June 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-876A1.txt
  • average discount method described in Hamilton's Request for Review for those discounts. The method described in Hamilton's Request for Review applies only for services shared by multiple schools and only those schools sharing the services-as opposed to all schools in the school district-are included in that calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Hamilton County School Board, Jasper, Florida, on May 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Parks, Hamilton County School Board, filed May 9, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-877A1.txt
  • funding request. Given the phrasing of SLD's request for information on individual hardware costs, we conclude that it was reasonable for Kerman to interpret SLD's inquiry as not requesting information relating to other costs, such as labor. Accordingly, we remand Kerman's application to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 12, 2000, by Kerman Unified School District, Kerman, California, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Library Division to review Kerman's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-891A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 29, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-892A1.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 14, 2001, by Rome City School District, Rome, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to David Smith, Rome City
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-918A1.txt
  • which components of the Dukane SmartSystem were deemed ineligible for funding by SLD. Accordingly, we cannot ascertain whether the 30 percent policy was correctly applied in this case. For that reason, we remand Delano Union's application and direct SLD to review the eligibility of the requested services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 9, 2000, by Delano Union, Delano, California, IS GRANTED to the extent described herein. We direct SLD to review Delano Union's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-920A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lemoore failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lemoore's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lemoore Union High School District, Hanford, California on February 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ellen Kimbriel, Lemoore Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-921A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Christopher-Ottilie's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Christopher-Ottilie's initial request, St. Christopher-Ottilie may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 12, 2001, by St. Christopher-Ottilie, Glen Cove, New York, on behalf of Theresa Paplin School, Glen Cove, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1089A1.txt
  • in New York City's public schools, the provision of discounted services for administrative entities such as professional development centers is beyond the scope of our statutory authority and would divert support from the program's intended beneficiaries. We therefore affirm SLD's decision to deny discounts to the UFTTC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, New York, on behalf of applicant United Federation of Teachers Teachers Centers, New York, New York, on May 21, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1090A1.txt
  • BOE does not create eligibility if WYNE is otherwise ineligible. Eligibility is based on the function of the site, not the association with eligible entities. Because WNYE is not eligible to receive discounted local, long distance, and cellular service, we affirm SLD's denial of WNYE's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York City Board of Education, Brooklyn, New York, on behalf of applicant, NYC BOE/WYNE, New York, New York, on May 21, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jackson S. N.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1101A1.txt
  • 18, 2001. Therefore, we dismiss Amity Regional's Request for Review as moot. Nothing in this Order prevents Amity Regional from appealing the Administrator's Decision on Appeal to the Commission within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Amity Regional High School, Woodbridge, Connecticut, on August 20, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joseph Campbell, Amity Regional High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1102A1.txt
  • filing that was given to applicants that met the Year 3 Server Failure Order criteria. Therefore, Bennett has demonstrated that it satisfied the criteria of the Year 3 Server Failure Order and its FCC Form 471 should be considered as timely filed within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bennett County School District 3-1, Martin, South Dakota on May 30, 2001, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ken Luckert, Bennett County School District 3-1 to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1103A1.txt
  • demonstrate that it submitted the correct Funding Year 4 FCC Form 471 application in compliance with the required minimum processing standards for Funding Year 4. We further, conclude that, Capitol Region has failed to make a showing warranting relief and we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2001 by Capitol Region Library Council, Windsor, Connecticut IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kenneth Sutton, Capitol Region Library Council, to Federal Communications Commission, dated July 13,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1104A1.txt
  • for other applicants. In light of the enormous demand for discounts under the support mechanism, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Charles Gibson Public Library, Buckhannon, West Virginia, on September 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Denise Weese, Charles Gibson Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1105A1.txt
  • of certifying an FCC Form 471. We see no reason in the record before us to deviate from this precedent. Thus, we find that the photocopied signature on Dodge's Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471 meets minimum processing standards, and direct the Administrator to process Dodge's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 25, 2000 by Dodge Memorial Public Library, Tamms, Illinois, IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from June Cain, Dodge Memorial
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1106A1.txt
  • Freeman has not offered an additional explanation of why it was late in submitting the applications, other than its unsubstantiated claim that it was affected by the server failure. We therefore conclude that Freeman has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Freeman School District No. 358, Rockford, Washington, on June 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jan Davis, Freeman School District No. 358, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1107A1.txt
  • held that applicants are not permitted to amend their applications after the close of the filing window to correct errors. We see no reason to depart from this precedent here. Accordingly, we find that the new evidence submitted with the Request for Review does not support relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Granger School District No. 204 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Timothy Dunn, Granger School District No. 204, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 17, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1108A1.txt
  • held that a photocopied signature constitutes a valid signature for purposes of certifying an FCC Form 471. Thus, we find that the photocopied signature on Kanawha's initially submitted Funding Year 4 FCC Form 471 application meets minimum processing standards, and direct the Administrator to process Kanawha's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 24, 2001 by Kanawha Christian School, Kanawha, Iowa IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Vicki Hillenga, Kanawha Christian School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1109A1.txt
  • website. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under section 1.106(j) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(j), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by E-Rate Central on behalf of Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, on February 15, 2001, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver filed by E-Rate Central on behalf of Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, and other unspecified applicants, on February 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Petition for Reconsideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1110A1.txt
  • only evidence supporting a breakdown of eligible and ineligible maintenance costs, we find that SLD properly attributed the percentage of ineligibility of the LAN hardware to the LAN maintenance contract. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly found 30% or more of the LAN maintenance contract ineligible. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Massillon City School District, Massillon, Ohio, on September 4, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Massillon City School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1111A1.txt
  • the application. We find no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Accordingly, we find that SLD appropriately denied Mettawee's request to provide funding for services provided by OneStar and the State of Vermont. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 18, 2002 by Mettawee Community School IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy M. Mark, Mettawee Community School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 12, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1112A1.txt
  • service support mechanism. Specifically, Mid Peninsula requests that SLD consider invoices requesting payment for funding request numbers (FRN) 218261 and 218262. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Mid Peninsula's request. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Mid Peninsula's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 4, 2001 by Mid Peninsula School, Rock, Michigan, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tammy Winters, Mid Peninsula School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 4, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1113A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Perth Amboy fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Perth Amboy Public Schools, Perth Amboy, New Jersey on October 5, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file the appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1114A1.txt
  • to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Pleasantville has failed to demonstrate the merits of its Request for Review, or good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Pleasantville's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2001, by Pleasantville Public Schools, Pleasantville, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Addison Williams, Pleasantville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1116A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ropes Independent School District, Ropesville, Texas, on April 1, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Elbert Wuthrich, Ropes Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 1,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1117A1.txt
  • is also consistent with the conclusion that the cost of maintaining telephones will be calculated on a per-port basis. Because we find that Rochester sought discounts on ineligible telephone maintenance costs, we affirm SLD's determination that 30% or more of FRN 304074 sought discounts on ineligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rochester Public Library, Rochester, New York, on May 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard Panz, Rochester Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 2, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1118A1.txt
  • Commitment Decision Letter was issued and 35 days after the September Request was faxed. Because Yeshiva did not provide SLD with information that supported of the amounts requested in the four FRNs at issue in this appeal in a timely fashion, we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Avir Yakov, Sprint Valley, New York, on May 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles Bludman, Yeshiva Avir Yakov, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1119A1.txt
  • the record reflects that Arugath did not file its FCC Form 471 within the filing window and Arugath fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find an insufficient basis for waiving the filing window deadline. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Yeshivah and Mesivta Arugath Habosem, Brooklyn, New York, on August 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Israel Engelman, Yeshivah and Mesivta Arugath Habosem, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1120A1.txt
  • section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Walker-Hackensack failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2001, by Walker-Hackensack-Akeley Public Schools, Independent School District 113, Walker, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniel A. Falk, Walker-Hackensack-Akeley Public Schools, Independent School District 113, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1121A1.txt
  • was not ``easily discernable.'' Even if SLD were to consider the contract here, the reference to ``circuits to the [district]'' would not qualify as the sort of unambiguous evidence from which the entities receiving service may be easily discernable. Therefore, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Meadow Union Free School District, East Meadow, New York, on July 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, on behalf of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1122A1.txt
  • also put in question where an applicant certifies before the end of the 28-day period. We therefore find that SLD appropriately requires applicants to wait 28 days before signing the certifications. Because New Albany concededly did not comply with this requirement, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, New Albany, Indiana, on October 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1123A1.txt
  • it had contracted with was indeed a designated telecommunications provider whose status could be appropriately substantiated. Therefore, we find based on the record before us that Autotote is not eligible to receive direct support under the universal service support mechanism for providing telecommunications services to Virginia DOE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by the Virginia State Department of Education, Richmond, Virginia, on April 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Virginia State Department of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1124A1.txt
  • generally find it administratively appropriate to require applicants to strictly adhere to minimum processing standards. Further, the Wireline Competition Bureau has specifically upheld the category of service minimum processing standard. We therefore find that SLD appropriately rejected Coffeeville's application for failure to satisfy this minimum processing standard. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Coffeeville School District, Coffeeville, Missouri, on June 25, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Aubrey Ray, Coffeeville School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 25, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1125A1.txt
  • light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. We therefore affirm SLD's decision and deny Kimball's Request for Review. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 2, 2001 by the Kimball School District 7-2, Kimball, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Patricia Booth, Dakota State University Business and Education Institute, on behalf
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1126A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Forestburg fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Forestburg Independent School District, Forestburg, Texas on January 11, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1183A1.txt
  • services for Funding Year 2. SLD denied Blackduck's request because its FCC Form 471 did not meet SLD's minimum processing standards. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Blackduck is seeking. Blackduck's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Blackduck Public Schools, Blackduck, Minnesota, on August 8, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tom Mathews, Blackduck Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 8,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1184A1.txt
  • it provided under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. We have determined, however, that, on April 18, 2002, SLD provided full funding of this invoice. Because SLD has granted the relief that Contra Costa Electric, Inc. is seeking, the Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Contra Costa Electric, Inc. on January 10, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tracey McDaniel, Contra Costa Electric, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1202A1.txt
  • a complete Funding Year 4 FCC Form 471 application in compliance with the required minimum processing standards for Funding Year 4. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, CESA has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 22, 2001 by Cooperative Educational Service Agency #2, Milton, Wisconsin IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sharon Webb, Cooperative Educational Service Agency #2, to Federal Communications Commission, dated July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1203A1.txt
  • impact on students and staff does not create the special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Macon has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we must deny its Waiver Request ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Macon County R-I School District, Macon, Missouri, on January 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Harold Brown, Macon County R-I School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1204A1.txt
  • information number or the service provider name in items 13 or 14 of Block 5. Accordingly, we find that by not providing information in items 13 or 14, Merrimack did not meet minimum processing standards for this request. As a result, we deny Merrimack's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 6, 2001 by Merrimack Valley Library Consortium IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lawrence R. Rungren, Merrimack Valley Library Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1205A1.txt
  • percent of the cost of the FRN, and therefore properly denied the entire FRN. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York Military Academy, Cornwall-on-Hudson, on October 18, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donald Schwegler, New York Military Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 18, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1206A1.txt
  • can be efficiently and effectively fulfilled. Queen of Peace provides no evidence of special circumstances warranting deviation from our rule establishing the filing window deadline. We therefore conclude that Queen of Peace has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) that the Waiver Request filed by Queen of Peace Elementary School, North Arlington, New Jersey, on August 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Schlitt, Queen of Peace Church, on behalf of Queen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1207A1.txt
  • fiber optic build-out is therefore an eligible telecommunications cost. Accordingly, we grant the Request for Review, and remand to SLD for further review of FRN 452541 consistent with this decision. In so doing, we make no final determination as to whether the one-time cost should be funded. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Southwest Virginia Education and Training Network, Abingdon, Virginia, on June 8, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this application IS REMANDED for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1208A1.txt
  • would have a detrimental impact on the school or library in question and that such impact is a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Tuxedo has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Tuxedo Park School, Tuxedo Park, New York, on December 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Pearson and Ann Doherty Cooke, Tuxedo Park School, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1209A1.txt
  • to carefully review its application before submission to SLD and ensure that it complied with program rules and regulations. We therefore find that Union fails to present good cause as to why the Commission's rules should be waived. As a result, we deny Union's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 23, 2001 by Union County School District IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wayne Goforth, Union County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1210A1.txt
  • (Administrator). Winnisquam seeks review and reversal of SLD's denial of Winnisquam's request to split a funding request between two service providers. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Winnisquam is seeking. The Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winnisquam Regional School District, Northfield, New Hampshire, on February 26, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kevin B. Sousa, Winnisquam Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1211A1.txt
  • proceeding. If it were, then the requirement that the proceeding be ``ongoing'' would be meaningless. Therefore, we find that Chawanakee is not entitled to raise a PRA challenge to the application decision, and the Request for Review must be dismissed as untimely in accordance with Commission regulations. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chawanakee Joint Elementary School District, North Fork, California, on September 6, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Chawanakee Joint Elementary School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1212A1.txt
  • Form 470 posted in a previous year. As a result, Dickenson could not, in any case, support its Funding Year 4 request for month-to-month service by reliance on the Funding Year 1 DIT Form 470. We therefore deny Dickenson's request to substitute a new FCC Form 470. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dickenson County Public Schools, Clintwood, Virginia, on March 5, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from David C. Yates, Dickenson County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1224A1.txt
  • the deadline had already passed. Albany County offers no additional reason why it did not meet the deadline. We find that Albany County has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from the general rule, and, therefore, we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Albany County Public Schools, Albany County, Minnesota on August 7, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rocky Tyler, Albany County School District 1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1225A1.txt
  • granted because the error was unintentional. It is well established, however, that applicants are responsible for ensuring that their applications are made on the correct forms. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by B. F. Jones Memorial Library, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, on January 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Colombo, B.F. Jones Memorial Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1226A1.txt
  • create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we cannot give a waiver based on the premise that the library is small and well-used. We conclude that Central City has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Central City Public Library, Central City, Nebraska, on December 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynn Manhart, Central City Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1227A1.txt
  • evidence that the material was sent by January 18, 2001. If the applicant can submit proof, then the application should be considered within the filing window. If the applicant cannot submit such proof, SLD should treat this application in accordance with its standard procedures for illegible postmarks. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jaffrey-Rindge Cooperative School District, Jaffrey, New Hampshire, on September 4, 2001, IS REMANDED to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paul LaFreniere, Jaffrey-Rindge
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1228A1.txt
  • have accepted receipts from couriers as evidence of when material was sent to SLD. Therefore, we find that Karnes filed its FCC Form 471 application, including the Block 6 certification page and the Item 21 attachments, by the close of the filing window in Funding Year 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Karnes City Independent School District, on August 29, 2001, IS GRANTED, and the matter is remanded to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1229A1.txt
  • has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its application. We have denied waiver requests based upon an applicant's claim that it misunderstood the program rules. For these reasons, Molalla's contention that it misunderstood the rules does not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Molalla's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Molalla River School District, Molalla, Oregon, on July 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Nickless, Molalla River School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1230A1.txt
  • filing window, it has treated this as a request for waiver of the filing deadline and directed Mora to make this request to the Commission. Because we find that this material was timely filed, we need not address Mora's request for a waiver of the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Mora Public Schools, Mora, Minnesota on August 7, 2001 IS REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Keith Lester, Mora Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1231A1.txt
  • on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Lane has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a waiver of the filing deadline, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lane Education Service District, Eugene Oregon, on August 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Randy Trummer, Lane Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1232A1.txt
  • If SLD determines that Halifax did attempt to contact SLD directly or through its state coordinator about its inability to electronically file, then Halifax's application should be treated as timely. If SLD determines the applicant did not attempt to do so, then no waiver is appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services on behalf of North Carolina Department of Commerce - SIPS, Halifax County School District, on May 18, 2001, IS REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1233A1.txt
  • application review process or during an SLD appeal review, it would eliminate any incentive to comply with the SLD's document demands in a timely fashion. This would significantly increase the administrative burden SLD would face. We, therefore, deny Petitioner's Request for Review and uphold SLD's funding decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 31, 2001, by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services, Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Commerce - SIPS, Wright School, Durham, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunication Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1234A1.txt
  • responsibility for complying with our rules and procedures. Ridgefield does not offer any explanation of why its FCC Form 471 application was filed after the filing deadline. Therefore, we conclude that Ridgefield has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Ridgefield Public Schools, Ridgefield, Connecticut, on August 24, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Division Wireline Competition Bureau On August 24, 2001, Ridgefield filed copies of its appeal letter to SLD and subsequent reply from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1235A1.txt
  • indicate that Schechter used the mail to submit a copy of the main portion of its application. Therefore, we find that Schechter did not submit that portion of the application either electronically or by mail within the filing window, and we deny Schechter's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 27, 2001, by Solomon Schechter School of Queens, Flushing, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susanne Felder, Solomon Schechter School of Queens, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1236A1.txt
  • missed the Funding Year 4 filing deadline for seven applications for discounts under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. However, since TSBVI filed its Request for Review, SLD has granted the relief that TSBVI was seeking. Therefore, TSBVI's Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Austin, Texas on September 4, 2001, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig Abbe, Texas School for the Blind
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1237A1.txt
  • comply with the program. The circumstances described by Tuscarora do not constitute special circumstances for purposes of our waiver standard. Therefore, we conclude that Tuscarora has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tuscarora Intermediate Unit 11, McVeytown, Pennsylvania, on September 14, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tony Payne, Tuscarora Intermediate Unit 11, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1262A1.txt
  • the official record supporting Bloomingdale's assertion that it did not receive the Funding Commitment Decision Letter. Moreover, Bloomingdale fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on March 18, 2002, by Bloomingdale Elementary Schools, Bloomingdale, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Janis
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1263A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Easton Area failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Easton Area's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Easton Area School District, Easton, Pennsylvania on April 1, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Thomas G. Drago, Easton Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1264A1.txt
  • 18, 2001. Therefore, we dismiss Golden Ridge's Request for Review as moot. Nothing in this Order prevents Golden Ridge from appealing the Administrator's Decision on Appeal to the Commission within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Golden Ridge School, Fairfield, Montana, on August 20, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Caroline Forseth, Golden Ridge School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1265A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 28, 2002, by Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, Wheeling, West Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Judith A. Stechly, Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1317A1.txt
  • and therefore meets the Minimum Processing Standard for an original ink signature. Thus, we find that Panhandle's application should be processed in accordance with the precedent established in the New Hartford Order. Therefore, we remand Panhandle's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Panhandle Public Library Cooperative System on August 15, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Panhandle's application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-136A1.txt
  • easily confirm by searching the posted FCC Form 470s in the Funding Year 2 group, Saint Mary should have understood that its FCC Form 470 would not be valid for Funding Year 3. We conclude that a waiver of the competitive bidding requirements is not appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Mary School, Putnam, Connecticut, on March 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Phyllis A. Hickey, Saint Mary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 22, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-137A1.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because South San Antonio failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 FCDL until August 17, 2000, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss South San Antonio's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 14, 2000, by South San Antonio Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Frank Harmier, South San Antonio Independent School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-138A1.txt
  • inappropriate to take further action unless and until a specific applicant comes before us seeking review. We therefore deny Virginia DOE's Request for Review in its entirety. In doing so, we offer no opinion as to the merits of any other Request for Review pending before us. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Virginia Department of Education, Warsaw, Virginia, on March 14, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lan Neugent, Virginia Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 14, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1403A1.txt
  • find cause to waive section 54.501(c)(2) for the ineligible entities within Shawnee System's Year 1 request in the same manner and for the same reasons as the regulations waived in the Commitment Adjustment Waiver Order. Thus, Shawnee System's Year 1 commitment will not be subject to adjustment. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shawnee Library System on June 7, 2000, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the application IS REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-5, 201-205, 254,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1404A1.txt
  • Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), denying their request for discounted services. On April 22, 2002, the above-captioned entities filed Requests to Withdraw their Requests for Review. The Division grants the above-captioned entities' Withdrawal Requests and, accordingly, dismisses the above-captioned entities' Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Withdrawal Requests submitted by Lee County School District, Bishopville, South Carolina, filed April 22, 2002; and Marlboro County School District, Bennettsville, South Carolina, filed April 22, 2002, ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1405A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Fairfield fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on March 13, 2002, by Fairfield Public Schools, Fairfield, Connecticut ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Brian
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1406A1.txt
  • submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. Here, Plymouth fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Plymouth School District, Terryville, Connecticut, on November 15, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1407A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Bangor fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Professional Information Networks, Bangor, Maine, on April 24, 2002, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1408A1.txt
  • 82% discount rate. The record demonstrates that for the FRNs at issue, SWCS was entitled to only 60% and 70% discount rates based on the discount matrix. We therefore deny SWCS's Request for Review based on arguments that the services sought were incorrectly classified as internal connections. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 19, 2001, by Southeast Webster Community Schools, Burnside, Iowa, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mike Jorgensen, Southeast Webster Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-141A1.txt
  • decision by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to cancel a funding award in Funding Year 1 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. By letter filed January 10, 2002, NSCI requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by National School Conference Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, on March 27, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jerry George, National School Conference Institute, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 27, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-142A1.txt
  • Notre Dame's Application 2 should be processed in accordance with New Hartford. The record demonstrates that Notre Dame's Application 2 complied with the program's requirements in all other respects. Under the circumstances, we remand Notre Dame's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Notre Dame High School, Riverside, California on August 15, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Notre Dame's application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-143A1.txt
  • a decision of the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), denying Arrowhead's request for discounted services. On December 12, 2001, Arrowhead submitted a facsimile withdrawing its Request for Review. The Division grants Arrowhead's Withdrawal Request and, accordingly, dismisses Arrowhead's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Withdrawal Request submitted by Arrowhead Library System, Virginia, Minnesota, on December 12, 2001 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-144A1.txt
  • of SLD's denial of Horseheads' request to have one of its Funding Year 3 funding requests split into two separate requests. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Horseheads is seeking. Horseheads' Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Horseheads Central School District, Syracuse, New York, on March 23, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Shari Dwyer, Horseheads Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1457A1.txt
  • Brentwood has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Brentwood's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Brentwood's initial request, Brentwood may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Brentwood High School, Brentwood, Missouri, on March 15, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeanne Buschart, Brentwood High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1458A1.txt
  • applicant ultimately bears the responsibility of completing the relevant forms and submitting them within the established deadline if the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. We therefore conclude that Duncanville has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Duncanville ISD, Duncanville, Texas, on May 15, 2001, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Andrew W. Berning, Duncanville Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1459A1.txt
  • separate schools was accurate or not. Colonial Beach's assertion that it is listed by the state as a ``school district'' is not persuasive evidence on this point. Under the Commission's rules, school districts are not necessarily equivalent to a single school for purposes of discount rate calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Colonial Beach Schools, Colonial Beach, Virginia, on February 22, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kathleen F. Beane, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-145A1.txt
  • was the case in Naperville, the record reflects that Hudson's application, after corrections performed by SLD during its initial review, is otherwise substantially complete. Therefore, we grant a waiver of the filing window and remand the application to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hudson Falls Central School, Hudson Falls, New York, on June 29, 2000 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1460A1.txt
  • 888-203-0733. Lack of Internet access therefore also provides no grounds for relief. Finally, Gladwin pleads that the library is poor and deserving of funding. However, the assertion of need does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Gladwin County Library (Gladwin), Gladwin, Michigan, on September 10, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from David Volk, Gladwin County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1461A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 7, 2002, by The New School for Enterprise and Development Public Charter School, Washington, DC, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from JoEtta Patterson, The New School for Enterprise
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1462A1.txt
  • to its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, applicants must assume responsibility for timely submission of their appeals to SLD if they wish their appeals to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Reavis Math/Science Specialty School, Chicago, Illinois, on May 13, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1464A1.txt
  • well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Buffalo City School District with the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company on May 16, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-146A1.txt
  • Administrator apportion one of its funding requests, because the service provider no longer provides part of the requested service. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Nelson's request to adjust the funding request. Accordingly, we dismiss Nelson's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 26, 2001, by Nelson County Public Library, Bardstown, Kentucky IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Irene H. Underwood, Nelson County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-147A1.txt
  • SLD's rejection of Orange County's Funding Year 4 application for discounts under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Orange County is seeking. Orange County's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida, on March 2, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne H. Atherton, Orange County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-148A1.txt
  • decision on July 13, 2001, denying Prairie Home's appeal to SLD. Because the Administrator's decision was not addressed in the instant Request for Review to the Commission, Prairie Home may request review of the July 13, 2001 decision within 30 days of the release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Prairie Home Public Schools R-V, Prairie Home, Missouri, on February 13, 2001 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Larry L. Davis, Prairie Home Public Schools R-V, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-149A1.txt
  • and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of correct application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bonesteel-Fairfax fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bonesteel-Fairfax High School, Bonesteel, South Dakota, on August 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Loris J. Lindskov, Bonesteel-Fairfax High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 3, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-150A1.txt
  • Shenandoah has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Shenandoah's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Shenandoah's initial request, Shenandoah may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shenandoah Valley School District, Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, on September 6, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Annmarie Carter, Shenandoah Valley School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1511A1.txt
  • addressed to the correct address for FCC Form 471 submission, and postmarked February 15, 2001. Based on this clear evidence that Baxter submitted its FCC Form 471 after January, we conclude that Baxter did not mail its FCC Form 471 by the close of the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baxter County Library, Mountain Home, Arkansas, on August 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gwen Khayat, Baxter County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1512A1.txt
  • attachments, was posted by the last day of the window. As noted above, the Block 6 certification page and Item 21 attachments were postmarked on January 22, 2001, and were therefore ineligible to be considered within the filing window. Therefore, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Desert Sands Unified School District, La Quinta, California, on August 22, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Araya, Desert Sands Unified School District, to the Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1513A1.txt
  • of an application may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we find that Jennings has failed to demonstrate good cause necessary to justify waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jennings City Library, Jennings, Kansas, on August 14, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sonya A. Gillespie, Jennings City Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1514A1.txt
  • be considered within the window. An applicant must further take responsibility for the actions of those employees or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Minneapolis Public Schools on behalf of Minneapolis Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carol Johnson, Minneapolis Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1515A1.txt
  • not address whether it mailed its certification and attachments by the filing deadline. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Mount Carmel did not file its certification and attachments within the filing window for Funding Year 4. Therefore, Mount Carmel's Request for Review is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mount Carmel School, Saipan, Northern Marianas Islands, on September 4, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linze McGilvrey, Mount Carmel School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1516A1.txt
  • with all relevant rules and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Randolph School District, Randolph, Vermont, on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Stephen Metcalf, Randolph School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1517A1.txt
  • is whether the entire application, complete with certification and attachments, was posted by the last day of the window. St. Mary's Block 6 certification page and Item 21 attachments were postmarked on January 19, 2001, and was therefore ineligible to be considered within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Mary's School-Rosebank, Staten Island, New York, on September 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Virginia Savarese, St. Mary's School-Rosebank, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1518A1.txt
  • that a denial of an application may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, San Benito has failed to demonstrate good cause to justify waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by San Benito Literacy Center, San Benito, Texas, on September 19, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ron Rogers, San Benito Literacy Center, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1519A1.txt
  • with the program's rules and procedures. Sangerville does not offer any reasons why a waiver of the Commission's rules should be granted. Therefore, we conclude that Sangerville has failed to demonstrate a sufficient basis for a waiver of the deadline, and we deny its waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sangerville Public Library, Sangerville, Maine, on September 12, 2001, and its request for waiver of the Funding Year 4 filing deadline ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linda
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1520A1.txt
  • must be postmarked no later than the close of the filing window. The particular facts of this case do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administration District 53, Pittsfield, Maine, on August 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard K. Woodbury, School Administration District 53 (Pittsfield), to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1521A1.txt
  • must be postmarked no later than the close of the filing window. The particular facts of this case do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wayzata Public Schools, Plymouth, Minnesota, on September 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mark Manning, Wayzata Public Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed September 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1522A1.txt
  • a denial of an application may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we find that Wilmington has not demonstrated special circumstances warranting a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wilmington Public Schools, Wilmington, Massachusetts, on February 27, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Louise Leland, Wilmington Public Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed February 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1535A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lake Erie's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lake Erie's initial request, Lake Erie may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 23, 2002, by Lake Erie Educational Computer Association, Elyria, Ohio, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lloyd Wright, Lake Erie Educational Computer Association, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1588A1.txt
  • relief, since any potential applicant can obtain forms and opening and closing dates for the application window by calling SLD's Client Service Bureau at 888-203-0733. The assertion of financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Deer Lodge, Holy Ghost, and Seton on April 10, February 28, and March 6, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Letter from Shad Bailey,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1610A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Escuela Moises Melendez's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Escuela Moises Melendez's initial request, Escuela Moises Melendez may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 29, 2002, by Escuela Moises Melendez, San Juan, Puerto Rico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Ramonita Vazquez Diaz, Escuela Moises Melendez, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1611A1.txt
  • have a detrimental impact on schools and libraries does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Atchison Public Schools, Atchison, Kansas, on July 23, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Corbin Witt, Atchison Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1612A1.txt
  • certifying a FCC Form 471. We find no reason in the record before us to deviate from this precedent. Thus, we find that the photocopied signature on Fayetteville's Funding Year 2001 FCC Form 471 meets minimum processing standards, and direct the Administrator to process Fayetteville's application. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 12, 2001 by Fayetteville Public Library, Fayetteville, Arkansas, IS GRANTED and this matter is remanded to the Administrator for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steven Thomas, Fayetteville Public Library,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1613A1.txt
  • to its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Messmer Catholic Schools, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 23, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1614A1.txt
  • the application again for lack of a response. The only issue before us is SLD's initial denial of St. Mary's application based on the absence of the Item 21 attachments. Because SLD reversed that decision, we must dismiss St. Mary's School's Request for Review as moot. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Mary's School, Manchester, Iowa, on August 6, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joe Bearns, St. Mary's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1615A1.txt
  • resulting from the need to file a corrected version after a minimum processing standards rejection is not a special circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Mary's School, East Dubuque, Illinois, on July 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Nauman, St. Mary's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1616A1.txt
  • resulting from the need to file a corrected version after a minimum processing standards rejection is not a special circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Town of North Providence School Department, North Providence, Rhode Island, on July 31, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wayne Riendeau, Town of North Providence School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1617A1.txt
  • same application,'' were not also granted. However, the reason for the difference in outcomes is clear. In FCC Form 471 App. No. 152152, the signature date was April 5, 1999, not March 6, 1999, and thus, it did not indicate that a competitive bidding violation had occurred. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Onondaga Cortland Madison BOCES, Syracuse, New York, on August 18, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lawrence Dismore, Onondaga Cortland Madison BOCES, to Federal Communications Commission. filed August 18, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1672A1.txt
  • it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, ERIE 2 BOCES fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by ERIE 2 - Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Fredonia, New York, on May 24, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief ,Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1673A1.txt
  • have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library does not create the special circumstances that warrant waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Lineville-Clio has not demonstrated a sufficient basis for a waiver of the deadline, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lineville-Clio Community School District, Lineville, Iowa, on January 30, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert McCurdy, Lineville-Clio Community School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1674A1.txt
  • even when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, St. Patrick fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 5, 2002, by St. Patrick School, White Lake, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniel Marsh and Linda Meese, St. Patrick School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1675A1.txt
  • consultants and other representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely applications on its behalf. Here, Weyauwega-Fremont fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed May 22, 2002, by Weyauwega-Fremont High School, Weyauwega, Wisconsin, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gerald Pardun, Weyauwega-Fremont High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 22, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1676A1.txt
  • the Form 470, that a competitive bidding violation had occurred, and that the Academia Form 470 was therefore invalid under Mastermind. Because all six of the funding requests in the Academia Form 471 relied on this invalid Form 470, SLD correctly denied funding for the entire application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Consorcio de Escuelas y Bibliotecas de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Academia Adventista del Oeste, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, on November 29, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1781A1.txt
  • generally justify waiver of filing deadlines. Applicants that wait until the last minute before submitting their appeals risk untimely filing. Because Alameda failed to file a timely appeal, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Alameda's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Alameda County Office of Education, Hayward, California on June 21, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan Arjo, Alameda County Office of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1782A1.txt
  • are unused Funding Year 2000 funds remaining after the second quarter 2003, such funds will be used in subsequent funding years, not Funding Year 2000. Thus, additional funds will not be made available to Funding Year 2000 applicants and we therefore deny Houston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Houston Independent School District on April 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Houston Independent School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1783A1.txt
  • its obligation to guard against the occurrence of errors and fraud. If applicants are permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 18, 2001 by Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Schools and Libraries Division review its treatment of Block 5, pages 2, 3, and 14 from Intelenet's Application Number 201666 and, if warranted, issue a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1784A1.txt
  • groups of entities listed in Block 4 of the application. Therefore, SLD could easily determine from the application what entity or entities would be receiving the requested services. Accordingly, we find that the totality of the circumstances warrant relief and grant in part Marmot's Request for Review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Marmot Library Network, Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado, on July 23, 2001 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and we REMAND this matter to the Administrator for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1785A1.txt
  • for understanding program rules and procedures. Accordingly, the burden of supporting the requested discount level falls on the applicant, School for Language has failed to meet that burden for the funding requests at issue in the instant appeal. Thus, we deny School for Language's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the School for Language and Communication Development on October 18, 2001 IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Schools and Libraries Division review the School for Language and Communication Development's funding commitments for prior funding years and, if warranted, pursue
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1787A1.txt
  • Closter has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Closter's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Closter's initial request, Closter may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 21, 2002 by Closter Board of Education, Closter, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Barbara Mulholland, Closter Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1790A1.txt
  • find that SLD issued an Administrator's Decision on Invoice Deadline Extension Request, approving Lincoln's request for a 60-day extension of the deadline for submission of its invoice number 289253 from the date of the issuance of this decision. Therefore, we dismiss Lincoln's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lincoln School, Dumont, New Jersey, on April 17, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Tarantino, Lincoln School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1791A1.txt
  • Specifically, SLD denied Bartlett Elementary's request for discounts for telecommunications services, Funding Request Number (FRN) 810358. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial and approved in full its request for discounted services. Therefore, we dismiss Bartlett Elementary's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administrative Unit #19, School Administrative, New Hampshire on behalf of Bartlett Elementary School, on May 10, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan R. Ratnoff,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1792A1.txt
  • SLD denied School Administrative's request for discounts for telecommunications services, Funding Request Number (FRN) 810121. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial and approved in full its request for discounted services. Therefore, we dismiss Maple Avenue Elementary's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administrative Unit #19, Goffstown, New Hampshire, on behalf of Maple Avenue Elementary, on May 10, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan R. Ratnoff, School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1793A1.txt
  • Sheldon has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sheldon's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sheldon's initial request, Sheldon may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sheldon Independent School District, Houston, Texas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paul Hill, Sheldon Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 25, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1794A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Tennessee School Board's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Tennessee School Board's initial request, Tennessee School Board may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 11, 2002 by Tennessee School Boards Association, Nashville, Tennessee, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tammy Grissom, Tennessee School Boards Association, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-180A1.txt
  • respect to SLD application number 234939, Alisal Union may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. For these reasons, with respect to SLD application number 234939, we dismiss Alisal Union's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Alisal Union School District, Salinas, California October 12, 2001, IS DENIED IN PART and IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Glenn Della Maggiore, Alisal Union
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-181A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, All Saints' fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by All Saints' Elementary School, Brooklyn, New York on December 28, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-182A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Dixon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dixon Public Library, Dixon, Illinois November 30, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-183A1.txt
  • by an additional 30 days for requests for review, such as the September 14, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter, East Central's October 15, 2001 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant East Central's appeal and direct SLD to review East Central's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by East Central Board of Cooperative Services, Berthoud, Colorado on December 7, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry Parrish, East Central Board of Cooperative Services, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-184A1.txt
  • not occur until SLD acted on Marysville's appeal in its November 28th decision. Because Marysville failed to file an appeal of the October 13, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Marysville's Appeal to SLD as untimely. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Marysville Public Schools, Marysville, Michigan on December 6, 2000 and June 29, 2001 ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia L. Speilburg, Marysville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-185A1.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Our Lady's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Our Lady's initial appeal, Our Lady may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady Queen of Peace School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 20, 2001, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Laurence Mala, Our Lady Queen of Peace School, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-186A1.txt
  • SLD application numbers 248651 and 248803, Strathmore may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. For these reasons, with respect to SLD application numbers 248651 and 248803, we dismiss Strathmore's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Strathmore Union High School, Strathmore, California on September 20, 2001, IS DENIED IN PART and IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Vernon Snodderly, Strathmore Union
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-188A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Westport Edison fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Westport Edison Academy, Kansas City, Missouri on January 3, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-189A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Wheeler fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wheeler Independent School District, Wheeler, Texas on December 10, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1970A1.txt
  • extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 478205, 478207, 478210, and 481289. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Peru's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 478205, 478207, 478210, and 481289. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Peru's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2002, by Peru Central School District, Peru, New York, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bonnie L. Berry, Peru Central School District, Peru, New York, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1971A1.txt
  • fair is still present in this circumstance, deviation from Mastermind would not better serve the public interest. Finally, Dickenson's argument that Mastermind's benefits do not justify its costs is a disagreement with the basic rule of Mastermind, not a special circumstance warranting a deviation from that rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Dickenson County Public Schools, Clintwood, Virginia, on June 3, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Petition for Reconsideration of Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1972A1.txt
  • 471 signed on December 19, 2000 that accompanied East Washington's Request for Review has no bearing because it was never properly filed with SLD. We affirm SLD's decision to reject both of East Washington's FCC Form 471 applications, and, therefore, deny East Washington's Request for Review. 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Washington School Corporation, Pekin, Indiana, on April 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gregory Powell, East Washington School Corporation, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1973A1.txt
  • its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. Here, Inland Lakes fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Inland Lakes Schools, Indian River, Michigan, on June 28, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1974A1.txt
  • and processes thousands of applications each year, and therefore it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant responsibility for complying with the program's rules and procedures. We therefore find that Quincy has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Quincy School District 172, Bloomingdale, Illinois, on August 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Steinberg, Telesolutions Consultants, on behalf of Quincy School District 172, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1975A1.txt
  • well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. III. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Chicago Public Schools on June 10, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Funding Year 2001 deadline for installation of non-recurring services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1976A1.txt
  • SOCA expresses concern that SLD intends now to deny the FRN completely. However, SLD has already issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter that, inter alia, awarded funding for FRN 633750 in the amount stated in the RAL. This part of the Request for Review is therefore moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by SouthWest Ohio Computer Association, Hamilton, Ohio, on August 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by SouthWest Ohio Computer Association, CC Docket Nos.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1977A1.txt
  • in FRN 406031, $7,200 of the cost (or 37.5% of the total request) was for ineligible services. SLD therefore properly denied Eureka's funding request because more than 30% of the request was for ineligible services. We thus uphold SLD's funding decision and deny Eureka's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Eureka Unified School District 389, Eureka Kansas, on February 16, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Leo Davis, Eureka Unified School District 389, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1978A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Illinois School's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Illinois School's initial request, Illinois School may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Illinois School for the Deaf, Jacksonville, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Heinemann, Illinois School for the Deaf, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1979A1.txt
  • applicants submit a signed Block 6 Certification. We find no reason to depart from that standard, and in so doing, we reemphasize that the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided properly rests with the applicants themselves. We therefore deny Watervliet's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 23, 2000, Watervliet School District, Watervliet, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John Heid, Watervliet School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1980A1.txt
  • an agreement with the service provider. By completing and signing the application before the waiting period expired, Wexford-Missaukee effectively indicated that it had ceased consideration of competitive bids, thereby undermining the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We therefore uphold the Administrator's decision and deny Wexford-Missaukee's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wexford-Missaukee Independent School District, Cadillac, Michigan, on October 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynn Bollman, Wexford-Missaukee Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1981A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Jumoke Charter fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jumoke Charter School, Hartford, Connecticut, on June 21, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1982A1.txt
  • incomplete and ineffective, for lack of a certifying signature. Patton Elementary's error was not remedied by the resubmission of a signed application on March 19, 2001, because the deadline for the Funding Year 2001 FCC Form 471 was that it must be postmarked by January 18, 2001. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by General George Patton Elementary School, Riverdale, Illinois, on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert Charnot, General George Patton School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1983A1.txt
  • outside the filing window, it does not have priority status over any requests filed within the filing window. Therefore, we conclude that West Oso has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Oso Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, on January 18, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ruben Corkill, West Oso ISD, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1984A1.txt
  • deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 392767 and 338888. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Pan United's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 392767 and 338888. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Pan United's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 18, 2002, by Pan United Corporation, Edison, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from David Lin, Pan United Corporation, Edison, New Jersey, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1985A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Riverdale requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 421251. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Riverdale's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 421251. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Riverdale's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 20, 2002, by Riverdale School District, Muscoda, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Thomas N. Yager, Riverdale School District, Muscoda, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1986A1.txt
  • general rule. A rule, therefore, may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In the instant case, we conclude that Ellensburg fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 3, 2002, by Ellensburg School District No. 401, Ellensburg, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Baker, Ellensburg School District No. 401, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1991A1.txt
  • in section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 6, 2001, by International Telcom Ltd., IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Anita Cheng Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review by International Telcom Ltd. of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, filed November 6, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2007A1.txt
  • Unlike Arlington, the school system did post a new FCC Form 470 bidding those services. Because we find that Arlington did not post its new contracts for bidding in Funding Year 2001, we find that SLD correctly determined that Arlington had not satisfied the competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Arlington County Department of Libraries, Arlington, Virginia, on September 5, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Ann Friedman, Arlington County Department of Libraries, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2008A1.txt
  • an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Wireline Competition Bureau (previously the Common Carrier Bureau) has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. We, therefore, deny Beulah's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Beulah Public Schools, Beulah, North Dakota, on October 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wilfred Volesky, Beulah Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 9, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2009A1.txt
  • and determine what amount of funding, if any, is supported by the new bills and spreadsheets, we remand the application to SLD for consideration of FRN 594956 in light of Carrollton's additional evidence. We affirm, however, that the ultimate burden of proving eligibility remains with the applicant. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District, Farmers Branch, Texas, on March 11, 2002 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Andrew Berning, Carrollton-Farmers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2010A1.txt
  • We also have held that the assertion of financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. We conclude that the circumstances presented by Overton and Chrisman are insufficient to warrant a deviation from the general rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Chrisman Public Library, Chrisman, Illinois, and Overton Public School District, Omaha, Nebraska, on January 16, and April 16, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2011A1.txt
  • the incorrect OMB-approved form. Fair Lawn then filed the instant Request for Review. Fair Lawn again challenges SLD's decision to deny File Number NEC.471.11-19-99.01100003. Because the June 27, 2001 decision disposed of the factual and legal issue, we dismiss Fair Lawn's Request for Review without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fair Lawn Board of Education, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, on January 11, 2002, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joanne Wilson, Fair Lawn Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2012A1.txt
  • any such evidence in the record. As noted above, the two award dates that are supported by the record are both prior to the Kenedy Form 470's allowable contract date. Therefore, we find that SLD correctly concluded that Kenedy did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Kenedy Public Library, Kenedy, Texas, on February 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sylvia Peña, Kenedy Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2013A1.txt
  • appeal of the July 24, 2001 Postcard in the appropriate manner and because its subsequent appeal of the postcard was filed outside the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Elizabeth's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Elizabeth Elementary School, Wilmington, Delaware on January 9, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Stuchlik, Office of Senator Thomas R. Carper on behalf of St. Elizabeth
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2014A1.txt
  • year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. In particular, failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements must result in a denial of support by SLD. The Division, therefore, denies Thomasville's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Thomasville City Schools, Thomasville, Georgia, on January 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James S. Cable, Thomasville City Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed January 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2015A1.txt
  • of Wynot's form, as noted, had the date of September 1999. In addition, as we have stated before, the assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on schools and libraries does not provide grounds for relief from a failure to satisfy program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wynot Public School, Wynot, Nevada, on February 14, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau See Letter from Carol Tramp, Wynot Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, School and Libraries Division,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2016A1.txt
  • still have submitted one of the alternative means of documenting its ability to pay, and obtained copies of its service contracts from Smart Telecom, its service provider. Because Yeshiva did not comply with or even respond to SLD's follow-up documentation requests, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Chasdei Torah, Brooklyn, New York, on April 3, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Aaron Katz, Yeshiva Chasdei Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-223A1.txt
  • substitute a new provider for NTS in their applications. However, changing the service provider from whom they are seeking services will not alter the invalidity of their Forms 470, and thus provide no basis for granting applications based on those Forms 470. We therefore deny the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on behalf of the above-captioned Petitioners on October 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John L. Hampton, Lawrence Kansas, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 6, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2240A1.txt
  • its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeals to SLD if it wishes its appeals to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by The Baltimore Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on June 26, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2241A1.txt
  • inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Brandon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Brandon School, Natick, Massachusetts, on June 13, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2243A1.txt
  • with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Graydon Manor fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Graydon Manor Day School, Sterling, Virginia, on June 25, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2244A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Hardee County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Hardee County's initial request, Hardee County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 22, 2002, by Hardee County School District, Wauchula, Florida, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from C.W. Caligan, Hardee County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2245A1.txt
  • Decision Letter on July 23, 2001. Merely stating that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for granting relief. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on October 15, 2001, by Round Lake Area Schools District #116, Round Lake, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2246A1.txt
  • universal service mechanism. Specifically, Salem requests that its Form 486 be considered as timely filed. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Salem's request to waive the Form 486 and invoicing deadline. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Salem's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 18, 2001, by Salem City School District, Salem, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gary Goldberg, Salem City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2247A1.txt
  • John's requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 439209. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved St. John's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 439209. Accordingly, we dismiss St. John's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 7, 2002, by St. John's County School District, St. Augustine, Florida, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Frank Clark, St. John's County School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2248A1.txt
  • Numbers (FRNs) 407384, 408001, 408250, 408342, and 408648. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved St. Theresa's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 407384, 408001, 408250, 408342, and 408648. Accordingly, we dismiss St. Theresa's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 5, 2002, by St. Theresa of Avila Regional School, Gonzales, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bonita Picou and Jay Sullivan, St. Theresa of Avila
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2249A1.txt
  • the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, West Ottawa fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to the Commission. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 1, 2002, by West Ottawa Public Schools, Holland, Michigan, IS DIMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal with the Commission IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-224A1.txt
  • claim that Georgetown did wait the 28 days required by the Commission's rule before submitting its FCC Form 471. Because there was evidence within the application to support the pending Request for Review, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand Georgetown's application for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 9, 2001, by the Georgetown Public Library, Georgetown Illinois, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Georgetown's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2250A1.txt
  • section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Wilcox failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wilcox County Board of Education, on September 18, 2001, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Malcolm Cain, Wilcox County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2251A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 22, 2002, by A+ Technology Solutions, Inc. on behalf of Deer Park Union Free School District, Deer Park, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2252A1.txt
  • section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Hastings failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2002, by Hastings-On-Hudson UFSD, Hastings-On-Hudson, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Guiney, Hastings-On-Hudson UFSD, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2253A1.txt
  • considered within the window. Applicants that wait until the last minute before submitting their applications risk untimely filing. Here, Scottsdale fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Scottsdale Horizons School, Scottsdale, Arizona, on March 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Judy White, Scottsdale Horizons School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-225A1.txt
  • apportion one of its funding requests, because the service provider no longer provides part of the requested service. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Kingman's request to adjust the funding request. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Kingman's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 24, 2001, by Kingman Unified School District 20, Kingman, Arizona IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alison Mecom, Kingman Unified School District No. 20, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-226A1.txt
  • 592979 and 573899. Mercer County has subsequently withdrawn its appeal of FRN 592979. Further, after reviewing the Funding Commitment Decision Letter issued by SLD, however, we find that SLD has already granted FRN 573899 in the amount requested. We therefore dismiss the pending Request for Review ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County School District, Princeton, West Virginia, on September 5, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, on behalf of Mercer County School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-227A1.txt
  • failure of NWLS to receive its requested discounts for internal connections would cause it hardship. Thus, we find that NWLS has not demonstrated the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules of priority. Therefore, we deny NWLS's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Waters Library Service on April 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jay Moynihan, Northern Waters Library Service, Ashland, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-228A1.txt
  • request for service into two separate FRNs, as it was receiving service from a single provider. It was appropriate for SLD to deny a request for funding for telecommunications services to be provided by a non-telecommunications carrier. We therefore deny Cotulla's Request for Review of FRN 289404. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review of Funding Request Number 289404 filed by the Cotulla Independent School District, Cotulla, Texas on June 14, 2000, IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2342A1.txt
  • it determine at or near the time of the deadline that they will be unable to satisfy the deadline, Danbury may file for an extension at which time Danbury should offer evidence as to how and why it will not be able to comply with the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 27, 2002, by Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Timothy P. Connors, Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2343A1.txt
  • to prepare and file the application, and it is well established that an applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for any errors in an application made by those to whom it has delegated responsibility for the preparation of the application. We therefore deny the Petition for Reconsideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed on July 8, 2002 by the Kimball School District 7-2, Kimball, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Wieland, Kimball School District No. 7-2, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2344A1.txt
  • allowed to submit the corrections after receiving an RAL. However, where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lake Station Community Schools, Lake Station, Indiana, on April 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Dan DeHaven, Lake Station Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2345A1.txt
  • chance to elaborate on its reasoning and to review and address the new assertions made by applicant. This in turn will aid both the applicant and the Commission should Lone Wolf find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lone Wolf Public Schools, Lone Wolf, Oklahoma, on March 4, 2002, is DENIED with respect to FRN 593359, and REMANDED with respect to FRN 593334, and SLD is directed to address and resolve the Request for Review with respect to FRN 593334.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2346A1.txt
  • a chance to elaborate on its reasoning and to review and address the new assertions made by applicant. This in turn will aid both the applicant and the Commission should Picher find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Picher-Cardin Independent School District 15, Picher, Oklahoma, on March 7, 2002 is REMANDED and SLD is directed to address and resolve the Request for Review. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2347A1.txt
  • applicants of errors prior to the close of the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. Therefore, we uphold the Administrator's Decisions on Appeal and deny Bienville's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 5, 2001, by Bienville Parish School Board, Arcadia, Louisiana, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Britt, Bienville Parish School Board, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2348A1.txt
  • bidding. Further, we find that, for the reasons discussed above, the Funding Year 2 funding request also violated our competitive bidding requirements and that funding was granted in error. We therefore direct SLD to adjust this funding commitment in accordance with its established funding commitment adjustment procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan, on April 9, 2001, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2349A1.txt
  • was not a first-time information request in Funding Year 2001. Indeed, Block 4 has been part of the FCC Form 471 for all previous funding years. As a result, because the application was not a first-time request, Wayne is not entitled to relief under the Naperville standard. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, Wayne, Michigan, on August 6, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Letter from Bruce Barrett, Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2352A1.txt
  • Form 471 filing requirements. In light of these facts, we find that the four applicants failed to complete their applications. The Request for Review on behalf of Powhatan School, Botetourt County School District, Isle of Wight County School District, and Newport News Public Schools is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on September 5, 2001, IS DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX A Applicant: Application Number: Prince William County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2353A1.txt
  • signature date on the Airborne Express receipt, the January 18, 2001 signature date on the certifications, and a January 18, 2001 date stamp present on the print-out of certain pages of Good Shepherd's attachments. We therefore find that Good Shepherd did not violate the 28-day bidding period. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Good Shepherd School, Baltimore, Maryland, on February 27, 2002 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further review. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Maggie McCarty, Good Shepherd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2354A1.txt
  • be an improper method of seeking a change of service provider, because it is contrary to the express instructions of SLD on how to make such changes, and because it needlessly places on SLD the full burden and administrative expense of processing and reviewing an entire application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henryetta Public Schools, Henryetta, Oklahoma, on February 25, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Dan Edwards, Henryetta Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2363A1.txt
  • applications that SLD must review and process each funding year, we believe it administratively appropriate for SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines and requirements. Weathersfield has failed to demonstrate the merits of its Request for Review. We therefore deny Weathersfield's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 19, 2002 by Weathersfield Local Schools, Mineral Ridge, Ohio IS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Weathersfield Local Schools, Mineral Ridge, Ohio, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2412A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on August 31, 2002, by Arcata Elementary School District, Arcata, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Matt Malkus, Arcata Elementary School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 31,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2413A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 9, 2002, by Chatham Area Public Library, Chatham, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John M. Shimkus, Member of Congress, 20th District, Illinois, on behalf of Linda
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2414A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 3, 2002, by Kent County Public Schools, Chestertown, Maryland, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Stephen J. Wilson, Kent County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2415A1.txt
  • Lone Wolf requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 340337. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Lone Wolf's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 340337. Accordingly, we dismiss Lone Wolf's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 9, 2002, by Lone Wolf Public Schools, Lone Wolf, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Sutherland, Lone Wolf Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2416A1.txt
  • Clay requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 430711. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Red Clay's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 430711. Accordingly, we dismiss Red Clay's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed May 20, 2002, by Red Clay School District, Dover, Delaware, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kay R. Buck, Red Clay School District, Dover, Delaware, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2417A1.txt
  • be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRNs) 359426, 359488, and 359560. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved South Lane's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 359426, 359488, and 359560. Accordingly, we dismiss South Lane's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 25, 2002, by South Lane School District, Cottage Grove, Oregon, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Scott Baker, South Lane School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2418A1.txt
  • that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 353235. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Twin Rivers District's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 353235. Accordingly, we dismiss Twin Rivers District's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed May 10, 2002, by Twin Rivers District Public Library, Colona, Illinois, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Christine Rugh, Twin Rivers District Public Library, Colona, Illinois, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2419A1.txt
  • for Funding Request Number (FRN) 394147 because of difficulties with its selected service provider. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Middle Country's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 394147. Accordingly, we dismiss Middle Country's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 8, 2002, by Middle Country Public Library, Centereach, New York, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandra Feinberg, Middle Country Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2420A1.txt
  • Year 2000 application, FRNs 418862, 419213, 420532, and 419110. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Nelson County's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 418862, 419213, 420532, and 419110. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Nelson County's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Nelson County Public Schools, on April 9, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from W. Ernest Worley, Nelson County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2459A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission and SLD only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 31, 2002, by Bullitt County School District, Shepherdsville, Kentucky, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Jay Swigart, Bullitt County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2529A1.txt
  • it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Chicago Public Schools fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2531A1.txt
  • or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Des Moines has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed April 2, 2002 by Des Moines Public Schools, Des Moines, Iowa, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Greg Davis, Des Moines Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated April 2, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2532A1.txt
  • Baton Rouge's application to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order, and instruct SLD to issue an appropriate Funding Commitment Decision Letter, if otherwise appropriate. However, we make no determination as to whether East Baton Rouge is ultimately entitled to the discounts requested in its application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Baton Rouge Parish Library on August 10, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and East Baton Rouge's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2533A1.txt
  • have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Jewish Educational Center's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jewish Educational Center, Elizabeth, New Jersey, on August 6, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Evelyn C. Wolgin, Jewish Educational Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2534A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Johnson fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Johnson Elementary School, Johnson, Vermont on October 15, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2535A1.txt
  • analysis. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with our rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Hancock County has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances sufficient to warrant a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Hancock County Public Library, Sneedville, Tennessee, on July 30, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Floyd W. Rhea, Hancock County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2536A1.txt
  • behalf, even when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, Homer-Center fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Homer-Center School District, Homer City, Pennsylvania, on August 9, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2537A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 19, 2002, by Indianapolis Marion County Public Library, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Edward M. Szynaka, Indianapolis Marion County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2538A1.txt
  • timely submission of its application. Neither staffing problems nor misunderstanding relieves applicants of their responsibility to understand the program and comply with its rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Lincoln County has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 30, 2002, by Lincoln County Board of Education, Hamlin, West Virginia, IS DISMISSED and the Request for Waiver is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Birdie Gandy, Lincoln
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2539A1.txt
  • order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Maria L. Varisco-Rogers Charter School, Inc., Newark, New Jersey, on August 26, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2540A1.txt
  • for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Paloma and Sentinel failed to file an appeal of their July 26, 2001 Funding Year 2001 Form 471 Rejection Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we deny their Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 20, 2001 by Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, on behalf of Mobile Elementary School District 86, Maricopa, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2541A1.txt
  • a new superintendent and a new person handling the E-Rate application process.'' However, we have consistently held that personnel disruptions, employee medical conditions, or employee confusion or misunderstanding about SLD rules and deadlines do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Nederland Independent School District, Nederland, Texas, and Wells Central School District, Wells, New York, on March 1 and March 15, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2543A1.txt
  • its appeals if it wishes them to be considered on the merits. Here, Pajaro Valley fails to present good cause why it could not timely file its appeals. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the deadline for the filing of Pajaro Valley's appeal with SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and Waiver filed on February 28 and May 6, 2002, by Pajaro Valley Unified School District, Watsonville, California, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2545A1.txt
  • evidence supports Salina's claim that it did wait the 28 days required by the Commission's rule before submitting its FCC Form 471. Therefore, based on the evidence in the record, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD's decision and remand Salina's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 11, 2001, by Salina Independent School District 16, Salina, Oklahoma, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Salina's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2546A1.txt
  • is not a defense to failing to submit the Item 21 Attachment. Applicants cannot tailor-make their own version of FCC Form 471 by failing to include a copy of a bill or other documentation setting forth a description of the services for which discounts are requested. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Scott County Public Library, Georgetown Kentucky, on March 4, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Smith, Scott County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, dated March 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2549A1.txt
  • seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Yeshivat's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshivat Ohel Torah, Brooklyn, New York, on August 1, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Chana Bandman and Rabbi Cohen, Yeshivat Ohel Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2565A1.txt
  • TEL application with Forsyth's NET application. We find that SLD's error resulted in the denial of Forsyth's TEL application. We therefore remand Forsyth's application to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order. However, we make no determination as to whether Forsyth is ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 18, 2001, by Forsyth County Library, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Forsyth's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2566A1.txt
  • also is consistent with the Commission's finding in the Non-Recurring Services Order that external circumstances, such as delayed funding decisions, can create situations where deadlines are both impractical and unreasonable. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company, on behalf of the Lynwood Unified School District, Lynwood, California, on April 19, 2002 IS GRANTED to the extent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2731A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Escuela Manuel Corchado's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Escuela Manuel Corchado's initial request, Escuela Manuel Corchado may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 11, 2002, by Escuela Manuel Corchado, Isabela, Puerto Rico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Aura Alfaro, Escuela Manuel Corchado, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-281A1.txt
  • it was not eligible for discounted internal connections in Funding Year 3. Thus, whether SLD treated Columbia's missing FCC Form 470 number properly is immaterial in the instant case because Columbia would not have qualified for internal connections. As a result, we deny Columbia's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 26, 2001 by Columbia Heights Public Schools, Columbia Heights, Minnesota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Denise Mergens, Columbia Heights Public Schools, Columbia Heights, Minnesota, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2829A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 2, 2002, by Akron-Fairgrove Schools, Fairgrove, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Brelsford, Akron-Fairgrove Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 2, 2002 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-282A1.txt
  • determine whether Flagler has received discounted telecommunications service from TFC in the past, as it alleges. Assuming that this is true, it is not grounds for relief, as the relevant question is whether Flagler is currently seeking discounts on telecommunications services that are provided by telecommunications carriers. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Flagler County School District, Bunnell, Florida, on May 1, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louise Hurd, Flagler County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 1, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2830A1.txt
  • the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with SLD or the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 18, 2002, by Alexandria City Public Schools, Alexandria, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John D. Johnson, III, Alexandria City Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2831A1.txt
  • when it filed its FCC Form 471. Nothing in this Order prevents Aurora Weier from appealing the August 30, 2002 Funding Commitment Decision Letter to SLD within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the August 30, 2002 Funding Commitment Decision Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aurora Weier Educational Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on March 18, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Emilio Lopez, Aurora Weier Educational Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2832A1.txt
  • that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because Bayliss's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bayliss Public Library, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, on September 3, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Janus Storey, Bayliss Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2834A1.txt
  • requests pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Goose Creek's Requests for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Goose Creek's initial requests, Goose Creek may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, Bayton, Texas, on July 3, 2002 in connection with SLD Application No. 316961, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, Bayton, Texas,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2835A1.txt
  • Libraries filing window. However, since the Request for Waiver was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial and issued a Form 471 Receipt Acknowledgement Letter stating that Winans Academy FCC Form 471 was received and was successfully data entered. Therefore, we dismiss Winans Academy's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Marvin L. Winans Academy, Detroit, Michigan, on August 19, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tony Mottley, Marvin L. Winans Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2836A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss South Cook's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on South Cook's initial request, South Cook may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 11, 2002, by South Cook Educational Consortium, Riverdale, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tobin A. Mitchell, South Cook Educational Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2837A1.txt
  • not file an FCC Form 470 to request funding for month-to-month service. Thus, Petitioners failed to comply with our competitive bidding requirements and SLD properly denied funding beyond the period specified in Petitioners' service agreement. We therefore, affirm SLD's funding decision, and deny Petitioners' Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services, Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of Craven County Public School System on June 1, 2001, and Nash County-Rocky Mount Public School System on May 31, 2001, and the Request for Review filed by Whiteville City
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2838A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 27, 2002, by Sweetwater Union High School District, Chula Vista, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Clark, Sweetwater Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2839A1.txt
  • funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. In particular, failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements must result in a denial of support by SLD. We, therefore, deny Timbuktu's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Timbuktu Academy of Science and Technology, on December 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gloria House, Timbuktu Academy of Science and Technology, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-283A1.txt
  • new facts. Moreover, a party may not base a petition for reconsideration on new facts that were available to it at the time of its original request for review. As a result, Houghton Lake's petition for reconsideration is subject to dismissal as repetitious pursuant to Section 1.106(b)(3). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Houghton Lake Public Library, Houghton Lake, Michigan on August 18, 1999 is DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donna J. Alward, Houghton Lake Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 18, 1999 (Petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2970A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 16, 2002, by U.S.D. 468 - Healy Public Schools, Healy, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Reece, U.S.D. 468 - Healy Public Schools, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2971A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Holy Redeemer failed to file an appeal of the June 3, 2002 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 60-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Holy Redeemer's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Holy Redeemer Catholic School, Alpharetta, Georgia on October 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Laura Burell, Holy Redeemer Catholic School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2972A1.txt
  • its appeals if it wishes them to be considered on the merits. Here, Blessed Sacrament fails to present good cause why it could not timely file its appeals. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the deadline for the filing of Blessed Sacrament's appeal with SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Blessed Sacrament Catholic School, Newark, New Jersey on October 8, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Scott DeCarolis, Blessed Sacrament Catholic School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2973A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 16, 2002, by Portsmouth School Department, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Edward Stokel, Portsmouth School Department, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 16, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2974A1.txt
  • Gentry has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Gentry's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Gentry's initial request, Gentry may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 4, 2002 by Gentry Public Schools, Gentry, Arkansas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joni Wilson, Gentry Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-302A1.txt
  • Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), denying their request for discounted services. On January 11, 2002, the above-captioned entities filed Requests to Withdraw their Requests for Review. The Division grants the above-captioned entities' Withdrawal Requests and, accordingly, dismisses the above-captioned entities' Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Withdrawal Request submitted by Barbour County School District, Philippi, West Virginia, filed January 11, 2002; Berkeley County School District, Martinsburg, West Virginia, filed January 11, 2002; Fayette County School District, Fayetteville, West Virginia, filed January 11, 2002; Lewis County School District, Weston, West Virginia, filed January 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-303A1.txt
  • their applications were not filed with SLD by the deadline for priority funding in Funding Year 4. However, since their Requests for Review were filed, SLD has granted the relief that each of the above-captioned entities sought. Accordingly, we dismiss the above-captioned Requests for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Bethel School District #52, Eugene, Oregon, filed August 24, 2001; Heartland Community Schools, Henderson, Nebraska, filed August 21, 2001; Henderson County Public Library, Henderson, Kentucky, filed August 31, 2001; Teays Valley Local School District, Ashville, Ohio, filed September 4, 2001; Wetzel County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3041A1.txt
  • to run before filing the FCC Form 471. Additional information on the web site clearly indicated that FCC Form 471 must be filed within a certain filing window. We conclude that CCS has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Center City School, Salt Lake City, Utah on May 15, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Ramsay, Center City School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3042A1.txt
  • certification was mailed. The mere fact that it submitted certifications in previous years does not support the conclusion that it did so in Funding Year 2001. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD for substantially the reasons stated in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the City School District of New Rochelle, New Rochelle, New York on February 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Liz D'Amico, City School District of New Rochelle,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3043A1.txt
  • know the Commission's rules and procedures, and that the funding is needed. As noted above, we have not found either need of the funds or employee misunderstanding as sufficient grounds for a waiver of the Commission rules in the past. We therefore deny Pottsgrove's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Duncan Public Library, Duncan, Arizona, on April 16, 2002; Mid Peninsula School, Rock, Michigan, on April 23, 2002; Neches Independent School District, Neches, Texas, on April 22, 2002; and Pottsgrove School District, Pottstown, Pennsylvania, on April 24, 2002 ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3044A1.txt
  • rules and procedures. Furthermore, we have rejected arguments based upon claims that SLD staff provided the incorrect information to applicants. After reviewing the material before us, we conclude that High Bridge has failed to demonstrate the special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by High Bridge Board of Education, High Bridge, New Jersey, on May 20, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from, Anthony Juskiewicz, High Bridge Board of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3045A1.txt
  • them for the application process. Instead, the program has one main filing window, and all who would apply for discounts through this program must apply within that time-frame. We conclude that Kearney has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Kearney Public Schools, Kearney, Nebraska, on June 13, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Karl Yeutter, Kearney Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 13, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3046A1.txt
  • filing window resulting from the need to file a corrected application after a minimum processing standards rejection is not a special circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We conclude that the circumstances presented by Marin County are insufficient to warrant a deviation from the general rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Marin County Office of Education, San Rafael, California, on June 3, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Jane Burke, Mari County Office of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3047A1.txt
  • other pages, we find that the form should not be rejected for failure to satisfy the minimum processing standard requirement of submission on the correct OMB-approved form. We therefore grant the Request for Review and remand the application to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Seattle School District 1, Seattle, Washington, on August 24, 2001 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further review. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dugal Easton, Seattle
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3048A1.txt
  • Furthermore, a special pop-up notice appeared for online filers at the start of the online application process, and again after the applicant clicked on the ``Submit'' button. We conclude that South Side has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by South Side Area School District, Hookstown, Pennsylvania, on April 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lori P. Byron, South Side Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3049A1.txt
  • 2002. Thus, the Appeal to SLD, filed on March 22, 2002, was filed within 60 days of the decision, and is timely under the Commission's rules. As a result, we reverse the dismissal for untimeliness, and remand to SLD for consideration Talmud Torah's appeal on the merits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Talmud Torah of Lakewood, Lakewood, New Jersey, on April 23, 2002, IS GRANTED, and the Appeal to SLD is REMANDED for further consideration on the merits. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-304A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Peach Public Libraries' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Peach Public Libraries' initial request, Peach Public Libraries may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Peach Public Libraries, Fort Valley, Georgia, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gilda E. Stanbery-Cotney, Peach Public Libraries, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 24, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3050A1.txt
  • run before filing the FCC Form 471. Additional information on the website clearly indicated that FCC Form 471 must be filed within a certain filing window. Windham has failed to support its contention that it followed the proper directions for filing the material within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Windham Public Library, Windham, New York, on June 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donna Pidgeon, Windham Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 10, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3051A1.txt
  • should Randolph County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRNs 555797 and 555870 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to the merits of these appeals. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 4, 2001 by the Randolph County School District, Elkins, West Virginia, IS REMANDED as to FRNs 555797 and 555870 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3052A1.txt
  • is clear from the documents submitted with its Request for Review that they were responsive. We find further that the ``completed'' notation on the faxed copy from SLD does not excuse Webster County for its failure to respond. Under SLD's seven-day procedure, it correctly denied FRN 592113. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Braxton County School District, Sutton, West Virginia, on September 5, 2001, the Request for Review filed by Summers County School District, Hinton, West Virginia, on September 17, 2001, and the Request for Review filed by Webster County School District, on August 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3053A1.txt
  • the applicant and the Commission should Boone County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRN 543275 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to its merits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boone County School District, Madison, County IS DENIED as to FRN 590131 and REMANDED as to FRN 543275 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3054A1.txt
  • work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of complete and accurate application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Because Brooke County provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information during the initial seven-day filing period, we affirm SLD's decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Brooke County School District, Wellsburg, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Brooke County School District to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3055A1.txt
  • work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of complete and accurate application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Because Greenbrier County provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information, we affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 4, 2001 by the Greenbrier County School District, Lewisburg, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Greenbrier County School District to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3056A1.txt
  • the late information, and therefore correctly denied the funding requests. Finally, the fact that SLD did not seek specific information regarding Jefferson County in its July 16, 2001 correspondence is irrelevant, because the seven-day time frame for providing additional documentation had long since expired at that point. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Jefferson County School District, Charles Town, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Jefferson County School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3057A1.txt
  • In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of complete and accurate application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Because Monroe County provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information, we affirm SLD's decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Monroe County School District, Union, West Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of the Monroe County School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3058A1.txt
  • the applicant and the Commission should Boone County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRN 562918 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to its merits. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 5, 2001 by the Nicholas County School District, Summersville, West Virginia, IS DENIED as to FRN 592051 and REMANDED as to FRN 543275 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3059A1.txt
  • and therefore was or should have been aware of "the need to carefully segregate its service requests'' for Priority One and Priority Two services. The lack of discussion in the FCC Form 471 Instructions of the Priority review procedure does not, therefore, warrant relief from that procedure. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shepherd Independent School District, Shepherd, Texas, on January 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Shepherd Independent School District to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 29, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-305A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Clair's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Clair's initial request, St. Clair may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Clair County Board of Education, Ashville, Alabama, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Darren W. Anglin, St. Clair County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3060A1.txt
  • during application review, it asserted that there was no such contract. St. Joseph may not submit new evidence in an application for review to correct that error. Therefore, substantially for the reasons stated by SLD in the Administrator's Decision on Appeal, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Joseph High School, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, on January 17, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Roy D. Roberts, St. Joseph High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3061A1.txt
  • of the services does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that Tripp has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we must deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Tripp County Library, Winner, South Dakota, on March 6, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandra Hansen, Tripp County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-306A1.txt
  • own error or misunderstanding of the rules. Subiaco has not offered any reason other than misunderstanding of the rules for why the deadline should be waived in this case. We therefore conclude that Subiaco has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Timmie Geels, Subiaco Academy, Subiaco, Arkansas, on January 23, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Timmie Geels, Subiaco Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 23, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3078A1.txt
  • not have prevented SLD from data entering Litchfield's application. We note that, under current minimum processing standards for Block 1, applicants are required only to include (1) the name of the Billed Entity or the Entity Number; (2) the Funding Year; and (3) the Contact Person Name. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Litchfield Public Schools Independent School District No. 465, Litchfield, Minnesota, on July 11, 2001 IS GRANTED and this application is REMANDED for further review consistent with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3157A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 17, 2002, by Grand Valley Public Library, Orwell, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Evans, Grand Valley Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3158A1.txt
  • its appeal to the Commission, provide information for three of the required items, Norwood failed to provide the fourth item-a detailed description as noted above. Therefore, Norwood did not submit a proper Item 21 Attachment, and did not complete its FCC Form 471 by the application deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Norwood R-I School District Norwood, Missouri, on March 26, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jimmie Lee Marler, Norwood R-I School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3159A1.txt
  • that this SLD procedure is applicable to the general case, it is not the standard of review that SLD applies to the specific context of requests for corrections that increase funding. Rather, SLD flatly prohibits such corrections, and as noted, the Bureau has repeatedly upheld this prohibition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Oklahoma City Public Schools, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on September 5, 2001 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Oklahoma City Public Schools, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on December 5, 2001 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3160A1.txt
  • upon receipt. SLD misapplied the rule in its Administrator's Decision on Appeal Letters. We find the applicant complied with the 60 day time period for filing its appeals with SLD. Therefore, we grant Winnebago's Request for Review and remand the above-captioned applications to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winnebago Public Schools, Winnebago, Nebraska, on December 12, 2001, IS GRANTED and the above-captioned applications ARE REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard B. Peterson,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3161A1.txt
  • to complete an on-line application is not a circumstance excusing the omission in its manually-filed application. Further, we have repeatedly found that the financial need of applicants is not a circumstance warranting waiver of the window. We therefore deny the Request for Review and affirm SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wm. H. & Lucy F. Rand Memorial Library, Troy, Vermont, on April 8, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Allen, Wm. H. & Lucy F. Rand
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3162A1.txt
  • in violation of the Commission's rules. Roanoke states that it was nevertheless awarded funds for this service in Funding Year 1999 (though not in Funding Year 2000). We therefore direct SLD to initiate commitment adjustment procedures in connection with the appropriate Funding Year 1999 Internet access requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Roanoke Rapids Graded School District, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, on January 2, 2002 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3163A1.txt
  • waive regulatory requirements, it does not have authority to waive a requirement imposed by statute. The October 28, 2001 deadline for CIPA certifications in Funding Year 2001 is statutory. Because the October 28, 2001 deadline is established by statute, we are without authority to waive it. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by St. Helen School, Howard Beach, New York on April 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Anne Badalamenti, St. Helen School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3211A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Waiver was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on October 29, 2002, by Buffalo School District 877, Buffalo, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert Berry, Buffalo School District 877, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3212A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Waiver was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on October 24, 2002, by Petersburg Public Library, Petersburg, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rachel Cole, Petersburg Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 24, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3249A1.txt
  • body of law that holds that, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, ``a signature may be made for a person by the hand of another,'' and that signature is as valid as it would be if it were written by the authorizing person. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Charleston County School District, Charleston, South Carolina, on August 29, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this matter is remanded to the Administrator for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jon Ostendorf, Charleston County School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3250A1.txt
  • light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information to SLD in its FCC Form 471 and during the subsequent review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Colorado City Public Library, Colorado City, Arizona, on March 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Facsimile from Dennis Darger, Colorado City Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 29, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3253A1.txt
  • Administrative Company. Since the Petition for Reconsideration was filed, however, the Bureau issued an Order reversing its prior Order. Kalamazoo then filed a Motion for Withdrawal of its Petition for Reconsideration. Kalamazoo's Petition for Reconsideration is therefore dismissed as moot and its Motion for Withdrawal is granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan, on November 4, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot and its Motion for Withdrawal filed on November 7, 2002, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3254A1.txt
  • such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, St. Mary High School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 16, 2002, by St. Mary High School, Jersey City, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3255A1.txt
  • with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Sullins fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to the FCC. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sullins Academy, Bristol, Virginia, on October 3, 2002, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3256A1.txt
  • It is well established, however, that an applicant is not entitled to relief merely because an application is rejected after the period for submitting a new application has passed. The burden of ensuring that an application is complete and accurate properly rests with the applicants themselves. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by City of Newport News, Newport News, Virginia, on January 23, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ed Maroney, City of Newport News, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3257A1.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Davidson County failed to file an appeal of the July 17, 2001 Pink Postcard within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Davidson County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Davidson County Schools, Lexington, North Carolina on October 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sue Whitman, Davidson County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 10, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3258A1.txt
  • made by applicant will enhance and benefit the record and thus aid both Grant and the Commission in the event that Grant's appeal is denied and Grant finds it appropriate to seek further review from the Commission. Therefore, we remand the appeal to SLD for its consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Grant Joint Union High School District, Sacramento, California, on January 11, 2002 is REMANDED and SLD is directed to address and resolve the Request for Review as if it were an appeal to SLD. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3259A1.txt
  • program rules and application requirements. Because applications may change from year to year, we find that applicants bear the responsibility of determining whether or not the complete and correct form is being used. We conclude that Foyil should have determined that it was using the wrong application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Foyil Public Schools, Foyil, Oklahoma, on January 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael McGregor, Foyil Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 28, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3291A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 26, 2002, by Wayne County Public School, Goldsboro, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sprunt Hill, Wayne County Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3365A1.txt
  • and remand for further review of the funding request consistent with this decision. In so doing, we do not intimate that Nassau County will receive the funding it has requested. Ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the request for review filed on April 3, 2000, by the Nassau County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Westbury, New York, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application for discounts filed by the Nassau County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Westbury, New York, is REMANDED to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3366A1.txt
  • Carroll asserts that the CIPA deadline should not be imposed on applicants seeking only discounts on telecommunications services. To the extent that East Carroll seeks a waiver on this basis, we reject the argument because, as noted above, East Carroll also received discounts on Internet access. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by East Carroll Parish School Board, Lake Providence, Louisiana on January 28, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Facsimile from Helen Millikin, East Carol Parish School Board, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3367A1.txt
  • date of the statute. Because Republic County was receiving discounts on Internet access, and was therefore subject to the October 28, 2001 deadline imposed by the CIPA statute, we are without authority to waive that deadline in this case, and the Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Republic County Unified School District No. 427, Belleville, Kansas, on May 20, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Letter from Larry Lysell, Republic Unified School District No. 427, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-341A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Addison fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Addison Northeast Supervisory Union, Bristol, Vermont, on January 23, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-342A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Granger fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeals to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadlines. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Granger School District No. 204, Granger, Washington on December 11, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file these appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-343A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Mulberry fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mulberry Elementary School District, Brawley, California, on January 9, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-344A1.txt
  • efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Newtown fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore must deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Newtown Public Schools, Newtown, Connecticut, on March 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John R. Reed, Newtown Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 30, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-345A1.txt
  • 28 days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. For these reasons, we deny Pend Oreille's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pend Oreille County Library District, Newport, Washington, on May 21, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pend Oreille County Library District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 21, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-346A1.txt
  • its position that cache servers should be eligible as internal connections. However, the 30 day period of time for seeking reconsideration of the Tennessee Order has expired. Therefore, we find that, under the Tennessee Order, SLD correctly denied funding for cache servers requested in the pending application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Prince George's County Public Schools, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, on October 2, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Siefert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Orin R. Heend, Funds for Learning, L.L.C., on behalf of Prince George's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3471A1.txt
  • in the official record supporting Horizon's assertion that it did not receive the Funding Commitment Decision Letters. Moreover, Horizon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeals to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on October 25, 2002, by Horizon Science Academy, Cleveland, Ohio ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sedat Duman,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3472A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 18, 2002, by St. Bernadette School, Seattle, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Marie Colarossi, St. Bernadette School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 18, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3473A1.txt
  • description of services in FRN 419287 was so ambiguous that it should have prompted SLD to seek further information on the proper breakdown of costs pursuant to its policy, we must affirm SLD's determination that the amount of ineligible services is 30% or more of the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Atlantic City School District, Atlantic City, New Jersey, on April 25, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jonathan Jones, Atlantic City Public School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-347A1.txt
  • it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, St. Francis Xavier fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Francis Xavier School, Acushnet, Massachusetts, on December 11, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-348A1.txt
  • NSLP, or 74.038%, and is therefore entitled under the discount matrix to a discount rate of only 80 percent. Because schools with less than an 85% discount rate were ineligible for internal connections discounts in Funding Year 4, we find that SLD correctly denied the two FRNs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Upshur County School District, Buckhannon, West Virginia, on September 4, 2001 IS DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne on behalf of Upshur County
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-349A1.txt
  • different service provider, because the original service provider no longer provides part of the requested service. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Shawnee Mission's request to adjust the funding request. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Shawnee Mission's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2001, by Shawnee Mission, Overland Park, Kansas IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rich Cavallaro, Shawnee Mission Public Schools, Overland Park, Kansas, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3508A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 26, 2002, by Kanawha County School District, Cleveland, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Kanawha County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3509A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Mescalero fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mescalero Apache School, Mescalero, New Mexico, on October 30, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-350A1.txt
  • window. However, since the Requests for Review were filed, SLD has issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal informing Chester that its appeal has brought forward persuasive information and that its request will be reviewed and considered for funding. Chester's Requests for Review are therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Chester Community Charter School, Media, Pennsylvania, on August 21 and 27, 2001 ARE DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pete Idstein, Chester Community Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3510A1.txt
  • have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Midlothian Independent's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on November 12, 2002, by Midlothian Independent School District, Midlothian, Texas, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kirk Paschall, Midlothian Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-351A1.txt
  • 471 before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. Genesis' Request for Review is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Genesis Catholic Elementary School, on April 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol A. Smith, Genesis Catholic Elementary School, Detroit, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-352A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Melrose Area fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Melrose Area High School, Melrose, Minnesota on January 17, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-353A1.txt
  • Administrative Company (Administrator). Rockdale seeks review of SLD's denial of Rockdale's request to have discounted internet access for Funding Year 4. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Rockdale is seeking. Rockdale's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rockdale Independent School District, Rockdale, Texas, on August 22, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marcia J. Proctor, Rockdale Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-354A1.txt
  • the Commission has found that it cannot accept unsupported arguments that mailed letters were never received. Here, Telfair fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Telfair County School District, McRae, Georgia on December 3, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-387A1.txt
  • of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. This policy imposes upon applicants the responsibility of preparing its applications carefully. For that reason, we deny Centerville's request to amend its FCC Form 471 subsequent to the filing window for Funding Year 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001, by Centerville School District, Centerville, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Doug Voss, Centerville School District, Centerville, South Dakota, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-388A1.txt
  • its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. Here, East Alton fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by East Alton-Wood River Community High School, Wood River, Illinois on January 2, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-389A1.txt
  • in section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed November 27, 2001, by Huntington Union Free School District, Huntington, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney, A+ Technology Solutions, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 27,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-390A1.txt
  • under program rules, cellular telephone service is not eligible for discounts to facilitate the transportation of students to and from schools. Therefore, we affirm the Administrator's finding that more than thirty percent of NESC's funding request is for ineligible uses and we deny NESC's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 17, 2000, by Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, Hayti, South Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lawrence L. Furney, Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-391A1.txt
  • it is not necessary for us to determine whether the application bore an original, ink signature because even if the signature was a photocopy or stamp, Preston's application should not have been rejected. Therefore, we grant Preston's Request for Review and instruct SLD to process Preston's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Preston County Schools, Kingwood, West Virginia, on March 26, 2001, IS GRANTED and that Preston's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-392A1.txt
  • Block 6 certification was postmarked on January 18, 2001, and was therefore eligible to be considered within the filing window. As a result, we find that Taft's Block 6 certification page was timely filed and remand this application to SLD for further processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Taft Independent School District, Taft, Texas, on July 6, 2001 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Madden, Taft Independent School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-393A1.txt
  • is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including the procedures governing the use of the state replacement contract SPIN. Therefore, we decline to grant relief on the grounds that Ursuline Academy received incorrect information from SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ursuline Academy, New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 4, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Elizabeth S. Hatzenbuehler, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 4, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-394A1.txt
  • SLD's ability to accurately predict the total amount of Priority One services requested in a year as required to apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Grand Island's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the School District of Grand Island, Grand Island, Nebraska, on March 14, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sue Burch, School District of Grand Island, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-396A1.txt
  • the terms of its financing agreement with Ameritech Credit. Accordingly, we direct SLD to reconsider Schaumburg's Year 2 funding request and determine to what extent Schaumburg is entitled to universal service funding in Program Year 2 for services obtained pursuant to its multi-year contract with Ameritech Credit. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Schaumburg Community Consolidated School District 54 (Schaumburg) of Schaumburg, Illinois, on April 20, 2000, IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for further processing pursuant to this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-40A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-40A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-40A1.txt
  • 3 application prior to January 19, 2000, and was not eligible for ``in-window'' consideration for Year 3 universal service support, and thus its Request for Review must be denied. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on March 3, 2000 by the Atlanta Adventist Academy HS, Atlanta, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rachel Burg, Atlanta Adventist Academy HS, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 3, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-428A1.txt
  • Year 2. SLD denied Laurel School's request because its FCC Form 471 did not meet SLD's minimum processing standards. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Laurel School is seeking. Laurel School's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Laurel School, Cleveland, Ohio, on August 15, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, on behalf of Laurel School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-429A1.txt
  • schools in the school district to the Internet, and are thus eligible under the Fourth Order on Reconsideration. We therefore vacate SLD's denial of FRN 356779 and remand for a new determination, consistent with this opinion, of the percentage of FRN 356779 that is ineligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bassett Unified School District, La Puente, California, on May 30, 2001, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-430A1.txt
  • By opening the door to additional evidence relating to the technology plan, SLD was obligated to wait until the agreed upon deadline to complete their review of the appeal. As a result, we find that it is appropriate to remand FRN 430758 to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Milford School District on March 28, 2001 IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kay
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-431A1.txt
  • properly categorized the request as internal connections. In Funding Year 3, only applicants with a discount rate of at least 82% were entitled to discounted internal connections. Because Ohio PLIN was entitled to a discount of only 53%, we conclude that SLD correctly denied FRN 399128. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ohio Public Library Information Network, Columbus, Ohio, on April 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Lynne Roddy, Ohio Public Library Information Network, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-432A1.txt
  • see no inequity in requiring applicants to include sufficient time in their application process to accommodate the rules of both state and federal authorities. In addition, we find that New York schools have generally not been prevented from obtaining discounts by the requirements of New York regulations. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pearl River School District, Pearl River, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ben Carosi, Pearl River Public School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 30, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-433A1.txt
  • its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window, and must assume responsibility for the actions of those to whom it delegates authority for program filings. Here, Springdale fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Springdale Public Schools, Springdale, Arkansas, on May 14, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim Rollins, Springdale Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 14, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-434A1.txt
  • 14 digits. We find that SLD rejected St. Edward's application because no FCC Form 470 Application number was listed. Thus, in accordance with our decision in the Pediatric Library Order, we remand St. Edward's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this order. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the St. Edward on the Lake School, on April 2, 2001, IS GRANTED, and its application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Helen Casper, St.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-436A1.txt
  • examine its rules governing the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism in order to ensure its continued efficient and effective operation. E-Rate Central is free to raise this proposal in the context of the rulemaking. We therefore deny this part of the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by E-Rate Central, Plandome, New York, on behalf of St. Patrick's Academy, Catskill, New York, on March 26, 2001, IS DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-437A1.txt
  • not present. Further, Laguna has failed to submit contrary evidence sufficient to persuade us that the missing page is due to the fault of SLD. We therefore find that Laguna did not submit a complete application and affirm SLD's rejection of the application on that basis. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Laguna Salada Union Elementary School District, Pacifica, California, on July 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Josephine Peterson, Laguna Salada Union School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-438A1.txt
  • the PC Cards, raising the total cost of ineligible services to 33% of the total service. Lunenburg has presented no information that would suggest that the attribution of 33% of the installation costs to the PC Cards was incorrect. Accordingly, as explained above, we affirm SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lunenburg County Public Schools, Victoria, Virginia, on May 17, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marie Gee, Lunenburg County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-439A1.txt
  • and capricious manner. Indeed, SLD merely determined an independent basis for its denial, which is not necessarily exclusive from other, equally valid grounds for denial, such as the use of the wrong OMB-approved FCC Form 471. We therefore conclude that Tallulah's Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tallulah Academy-Delta Christian School on August 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Beach, Tallulah Academy-Delta Christian School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 13, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-440A1.txt
  • incorrect form and then return to the applicant to collect missing information required in the Year 4 FCC Form 471 and obtain certifications using the correct language. Therefore, applicants properly have the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct OMB-approved forms. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Southwest Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, on July 25, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James E. McNamara, Southwest Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-477A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, West Harrison fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by West Harrison Community School District, Mondamin, Iowa on January 8, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-478A1.txt
  • Schools and Libraries filing window. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal, informing Winchester that its appeal has brought forward persuasive information that its funding requests should be reviewed. Winchester's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winchester Public Schools, Winchester, Virginia, on September 5, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steven R. Muller, Winchester Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 5, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-479A1.txt
  • have to grant similar relief to other entities that made similar mistakes, which would in turn increase administrative burdens for SLD. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Edgewood has failed to make a showing warranting relief and that its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed by Edgewood Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, on July 24, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Ochoa, Edgewood Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-480A1.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Green Bay has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2001 by Green Bay Area Public Schools, Green Bay, Wisconsin IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Danielle A. Nerad, Green Bay Area Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-642A1.txt
  • be filed with enough time to achieve the 28-day period before filing of the FCC Form 471, ``which must be postmarked no later than January 18... .'' We therefore find that AIC has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by art in context, New York, New York, on August 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Charles SanClementi, Jr., art in context, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-643A1.txt
  • be considered with other in-window applicants. How the applicant delegates responsibility for the applications is not relevant to our analysis. We conclude that Wilcox has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Dermott Special School District, Dermott, Arkansas, on August 17, 2001; Hoven School District No. 53-2, Hoven, South Dakota, on August 24, 2001; Mastics-Moriches-Shirley Community Library, Shirley, New York, on August 16, 2001; Mounds Public Schools, Mounds, Oklahoma, on August 20, 2001; Reading-Muhlenberg
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-644A1.txt
  • must be filed with enough time to achieve the 28-day period before filing of the FCC Form 471, ``which must be postmarked no later than January 18... .'' We conclude that Loutit has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Loutit District Library, Grand Haven, Michigan on August 29, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gail Skruch, Loutit District Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 29, 2001 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-671A1.txt
  • Hanna has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Hanna's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Hanna's initial request, Hanna may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hanna Public Schools, Hanna, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Moody, Hanna Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-672A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Municipal Telephone Exchange's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Municipal Telephone Exchange's initial request, Municipal Telephone Exchange may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Municipal Telephone Exchange, Baltimore, Maryland, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Gray, Municipal Telephone Exchange, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2002 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-673A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Twin Valley's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Twin Valley's initial request, Twin Valley may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Twin Valley School District, Reading, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert B. Lipton, Berks County Intermediate Unit, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-674A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Somis Union's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Somis Union's initial request, Somis Union may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Somis Union School District, Somis, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard J. Malfatti, Somis Union School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 30, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-68A1.txt
  • the general rule. A rule, therefore, may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In the instant case, we conclude that Schuyler fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 7, 2000 by Schuyler R-1 School District, Queen City, Missouri and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-697A1.txt
  • Review, seeking full funding of FRN 371468, must be denied. Further, because SLD has already improperly awarded discounts on this contract for both Funding Year 2 and Funding Year 3, we direct SLD to adjust these funding commitments in accordance with its established funding commitment adjustment procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady of Refuge School, Bronx, New York, on February 14, 2001, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-699A1.txt
  • that a new form was being used in Funding Year 4 and SLD's failure to notify Floyd County of the new form are not circumstances that warrant a deviation from program requirements. We therefore find that Floyd County has failed to demonstrate grounds for a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Floyd County Board of Education, Rome, Georgia, on April 3, 2001 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Floyd County Board of Education, Rome, Georgia, on July 24, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-69A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Cotton Center fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Cotton Center ISD, Cotton Center, Texas, on June 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Keith E. Gast, Cotton Center ISD, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 13, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-700A1.txt
  • filing window. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has issued Administrator's Decisions on Appeal, informing Wathena that its appeal has brought forward persuasive information and that its request will be reviewed and considered for funding. Wathena's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wathena Unified School District, Wathena, Kansas, on August 21, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leslie Pullman, Wathena Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-701A1.txt
  • the amount awarded for FRN 552512. In addition, we also note that Zeeland made its request over four months after the RAL was issued, well beyond the two-week RAL correction deadline. Accordingly, we find that SLD appropriately denied Zeeland's request to make certain revisions to its application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Zeeland Public School District No. 4, Zeeland, North Dakota on October 9, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Corbley Ogren, Zeeland Public School District No. 4, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-70A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-70A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-70A1.txt
  • three days before the filing window closed on March 31, 2000. Because Frazier demonstrates that it mailed its forms at least three days before the filing window closed, in accordance with Hardee County, we direct SLD to consider its application as filed within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Frazier School District, Perryopolis, Pennsylvania on August 17, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Frazier's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-71A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-71A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-71A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Pottsville fails to present sufficient good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Pottsville Area School District, Pottsville, Pennsylvania on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Diane Hutchinson, Pottsville Area School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-72A1.txt
  • place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. Here, Scottsdale Horizons fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Scottsdale Horizons School, Scottsdale, Arizona, on July 12, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Harry Stelling, Jr., Scottsdale Horizons School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 12, 2000 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-73A1.txt
  • all relevant rules and procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of correct application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Given SDAS's failure to substantiate its claim, we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Seventh Day Adventist School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on November 17, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brandy Sand, on behalf of Seventh Day Adventist School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-741A1.txt
  • the required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that ACCEPT has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 31, 2001 by ACCEPT Education Collaborative IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Pallidino, ACCEPT Education Collaborative to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-742A1.txt
  • correctly characterized as internal connections. Further, our review of the attachments reveal nothing that indicated any error in the discount calculations of the entities listed in Block 4 or anything that would have apprised SLD that any of the FRNs were wrongly classified as shared service requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gary Community School Corporation, Gary, Indiana, on May 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Yamilette Williams, Gary Community School Corporation, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-743A1.txt
  • required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that Saint Martin has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 30, 2001 by Saint Martin of Tours School, Bronx, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sister Nora McArt, Saint Martin of Tours School, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-745A1.txt
  • the required application or otherwise fail to follow program rules, run the risk that their applications may not be considered within the filing window. We therefore conclude that Adirondack has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed November 5, 2001 by Southern Adirondack Library System, Saratoga Springs, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Southern
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-74A1.txt
  • Form 471 when it receives it. The bar code on Waikiki's application indicates that SLD received it on February 17, 2000. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude that SLD did receive it on that date. We therefore deny Waikiki's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Waikiki Elementary School, Honolulu, Hawaii, on July 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Les Goto, Waikiki Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 6, 2000 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-750A1.txt
  • Appeal was issued, SLD could not possibly have considered it. Moreover, because we do not, in general, consider material not in the record before SLD, we find that it is not properly part of the record before us for review. We therefore do not address its significance. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, California, on November 21, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from David L. Wilner, Oakland Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-75A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-75A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-75A1.txt
  • no evidence of when it mailed its application. In keeping with this Order, St. Athanasius may provide evidence to substantiate its claim that it mailed its application on January 14, 2000. Upon timely submission, the Commission will determine whether the evidence supports a grant of waiver. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the following applicants SHALL SUBMIT, within 60 days of the date of the release of this Order, any such evidence as required by the terms of this Order concerning the date of the filing of their applications: Alpine County Unified School District, Markleeville, California, filed June 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-76A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-76A1.txt
  • filing window closed, and it was received by SLD on January 24, 2000. Stanley offers no other extenuating circumstances in support of its Waiver Request. We conclude that Stanley fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore deny its Waiver Request. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the following Waiver Requests ARE DENIED: Anna Stowell Sunderland Bingham Memorial School, Cornwall, Vermont, filed June 6, 2000; Capitol Region Education Council, Hartford, Connecticut, filed June 26, 2000; Dickinson Public Schools, Dickinson, North Dakota, filed June 26, 2000; Ekalaka Public Schools, Ekalaka, Montana, filed July 6, 2000;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-77A1.txt
  • the appeal unless SLD had requested the clarifying information during review and failed to receive it. These conditions are satisfied and, therefore, we vacate the denial of funding and remand to SLD for further consideration, consistent with this decision, of whether funding of FRN 227825 is appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chickasaw Regional Library System, Ardmore, Oklahoma, on July 18, 2000 is GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn A. McIntosh, Chickasaw
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-78A1.txt
  • on the discount rate, what entity or entities would be receiving the requested services. We find that the information was not easily discernable from information in the application, and that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, we affirm SLD's rejection of the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Crawford County Public Library, English, Indiana, on August 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Janet LaBreche, Crawford County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 9, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-79A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-79A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-79A1.txt
  • by Enoch Pratt appear to establish that each of the two applications relate to different Bell Atlantic accounts. In light of this possible incorrect cancellation, we remand Application Control No. E004736 (File No. SLD-109061) to SLD to determine whether discounts should have been granted for that application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore, Maryland, on March 15, 2000 IS DENIED IN PART, and REMANDED IN PART, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Wallace, Enoch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-80A1.txt
  • was appropriately returned for failure to satisfy minimum processing standards. We find that the information requested in Item 11 of Block 5, the category of service, was not a new information request in Funding Year 3 and that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Escondido Union High School District, Escondido, California, on July 10, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terri Stafford, Escondido Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-81A1.txt
  • processing standards. We find that the information requested in Item 11 of Block 5, the category of service, was not a new information request in Funding Year 3 and that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, we affirm SLD's rejection of the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hanover County Public Schools, Ashland, Virginia, on February 21, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Marilyn M. Walls, Hanover County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission. filed February 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-828A1.txt
  • for shared services ordered by billed entity.'' As noted, Chichester requested a site-specific service, not a shared service, and further specified the site as CSHS. We therefore find that SLD correctly funded FRN 190250 at the 40% rate of CSHS rather than the district's overall 49% rate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chichester School District, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania, on June 4, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joyce Voshell, Chichester School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 4, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-829A1.txt
  • that more than 30% of FRNs 393119 and 393807 sought discounts for services provided to Area Vocational Center. Under SLD procedures, if 30% or more of a request is ineligible, the request is denied in its entirety. SLD therefore correctly denied these two FRNs in their entirety. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Crenshaw County Public Schools, Luverne, Alabama, on April 16, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Reba Mason, Crenshaw County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-82A1.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Governor's School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Governor's School for Global Economics and Technology, Keysville, Virginia, on July 17, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy R. Carwile, Governor's School for Global Economics and Technology,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-830A1.txt
  • applications may not be considered for funding. The burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided properly rests with the applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Davis has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 20, 2001, by Davis School District, Farmington, Utah, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard Lemon, Davis School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 20, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-831A1.txt
  • in section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 2, 2001, by Elgin Public Library, Elgin, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Beverly Strong, Elgin Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 2, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-832A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Lancaster Area fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lancaster Area Library, Lancaster, Pennsylvania on October 19, 2001, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-833A1.txt
  • 2001 filing window had closed. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has determined that Lewis County's Form 471 application for discounted services was timely filed and has issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter. Lewis County's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lewis County School District, Weston, West Virginia, on August 28, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Lewis County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-834A1.txt
  • its FCC Form 471, Block 6 certifications, and/or Item 21 attachments by the deadline for the Funding Year 4 filing window. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Putnam is seeking. Putnam's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Putnam County School District, Putnam, West Virginia, on September 4, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, on behalf of Putnam County School District, Winfield,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-835A1.txt
  • the listed FCC Form 470 Application number contained less than 14 digits. Thus, in accordance with the Bureau's decision in the Pediatric Library Order, we remand Volusia's application to SLD for further processing consistent with the way the SLD processed applications with 14 or more digits. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the School District of Volusia County, on April 16, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from the School District of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-836A1.txt
  • which discounts are requested in FCC Form 471.'' Because Thomas did not list its request as one for Internet access on its FCC Form 470 and 471 consistently, we conclude that Thomas failed to satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. Accordingly, we deny Thomas' Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 29, 2001, by Thomas Communications & Technologies, Syracuse, New York, on behalf of John A. Coleman Catholic High School, Hurley, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-837A1.txt
  • 471 application, Block 6 Certifications, and/or Item 21 attachments were postmarked after the 2001-2002 filing window closed on January 18, 2001. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Webermeier is seeking. Webermeier's Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Webermeier Memorial Library, Milford, Nebraska, on September 4, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Edna A. Riedl, Webermeier Memorial Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-838A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Berks County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Berks County's initial request, Berks County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Berks County Intermediate Unit, Reading, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert B. Lipton, Berks County Intermediate Unit, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 27, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-839A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bnois Spinka's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bnois Spinka's initial request, Bnois Spinka may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnois Spinka, Brooklyn, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gitty Horowitz, Bnois Spinka, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 24, 2002 (Request for Review). Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-83A1.txt
  • subsequent years of a pre-existing multi-year contract. We conclude that, because Henrico relied on an FCC Form 470 seeking services in Funding Year 3 to support an application for services in Funding Year 2, SLD correctly rejected the application. Henrico's Request for Review must therefore be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond, Virginia, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Charles Stallard, Henrico County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-840A1.txt
  • 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules applies to all such requests for review filed by a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Floyd County failed to file the instant Request for Review within the requisite 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 26, 2002, by Floyd County Board of Education, Rome, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Gatlin, Floyd County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-841A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Haywood fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Haywood County Schools, Clyde, North Carolina on February 20, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-842A1.txt
  • Rochester has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Rochester's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Rochester's initial request, Rochester may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rochester Public Library, Rochester, Pennsylvania, on January 4, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jody Bell, Rochester Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-843A1.txt
  • of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be remanded to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Michael School, Brooklyn, New York on January 2, 2002, IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-844A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Wisconsin Dells's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Wisconsin Dells's initial request, Wisconsin Dells may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School District of Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ann Gissal, School District of Wisconsin Dells, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-845A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss St. Jude School's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Jude School's initial request, St. Jude School may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Jude School, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Deegan, St. Jude School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-846A1.txt
  • denied the application again for lack of a response. Therefore, we dismiss Rushford-Peterson's Request for Review as moot. Nothing in this Order prevents Rushford-Peterson from appealing the Rejection Letter to SLD within the 60-day time period allowed for such appeals from the date of the Rejection Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rushford-Peterson Secondary School, Rushford, Minnesota, on September 11, 2001 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Valerie Hasleiet, Rushford-Peterson Secondary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-84A1.txt
  • the application that the services in each funding request were site-specific with the same BEN. Additionally, as was the case in Naperville, the record reflects that Koko Head's application is otherwise substantially complete. Therefore, we remand the application to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Koko Head Elementary School, Honolulu, Hawaii, on July 3, 2000 IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Les Goto,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-85A1.txt
  • Hills does not dispute that Mon-Wal is not an eligible telecommunications carrier. Thus, we find that FRN 348764 was correctly denied based on its ineligible SPIN. Because the SPIN led to a funding denial, we conclude that Penn Hill was not thereafter entitled to a SPIN correction. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Penn Hills School District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on February 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louis Treleani, Penn Hills School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-86A1.txt
  • to filing the FCC Form 471 is itself a violation of the competitive bidding rules. However, we find that the new information cannot be accepted. The FCC Form 471s specified contract award dates for the services requested, and Richmond may not submit contrary information on appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Richmond County Public Schools, Warsaw, Virginia, on May 9, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karl G. O'Dell, Richmond County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-87A1.txt
  • Under program rules, not every application error is treated under the minimum processing standards procedures. Rather, only those problems specified by SLD in the Minimum Processing Standards will cause SLD to return the application without further review. We conclude that this allegation provides no basis for relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ringwood Board of Education, Ringwood, New Jersey, on August 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Diane DeBlock, Ringwood Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-88A1.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Tuxedo fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Tuxedo Park School, Tuxedo Park, New York, on January 30, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James T. Burger, Tuxedo Park School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 30,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-890A1.txt
  • Act. We leave all other issues for SLD to address as needed on further review. In so doing, we encourage SLD to proceed with caution in this novel context to ensure that universal service funds are distributed in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements and restrictions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Arkansas Department of Correction School District, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on March 1, 2001 IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-891A1.txt
  • official record supporting Kings Local's assertion that it did not receive the Funding Commitment Decision Letters. Moreover, Kings Local fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeals to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review as well as the request for waiver of the appeal filing period, filed on February 21, 2002, by Kings Local School District, Kings Mills, Ohio ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-892A1.txt
  • Therefore, based on the information in the record that was before SLD during application review, we find that the services requested in the 47 Funding Requests at issue in this appeal were not subjected to competitive bidding in compliance with Commission rules, and were therefore correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Montgomery County School District, Montgomery, Alabama on July 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Carol A. Doucet, Montgomery Public Schools, to Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-89A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-89A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-89A1.txt
  • have ended on January 18, 2000, and Alton would have been able to sign contracts and file its FCC Form 471 before the close of the filing window on January 19, 2000. We therefore find that Alton should be granted a waiver of the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Alton Elementary School - Maine School Union No. 90 (Alton), Milford, Maine, on October 4, 2000 IS GRANTED, and this application is remanded to SLD for further processing consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-90A1.txt
  • in accordance with this decision. If, under the substantive standard that SLD develops for permissible site corrections, the pending requests are denied on the merits, Forth Worth ISD may seek further review from the Commission at that time, subject to the deadlines for appeal of SLD action. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Forth Worth Independent School District, Forth Worth, Texas on September 14, 2000 IS GRANTED, and the site correction requests are REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-91A1.txt
  • to ``Funding Commitment Decision,'' SLD provided: ``Insufficient documentation.'' Next to ``Funding Commitment Decision Explanation,'' SLD stated, as noted above, ``Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to determine the eligibility of this item.'' Because Goodrich provides no evidence that it supplied the requested information, we affirm SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goodrich Independent School District, Goodrich, Texas, on May 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Keith McCallum, Goodrich Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 15, 2001
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-92A1.txt
  • Request for Review was filed more than 30 days after the issuance of both the July 14, 2000 First Rejection Letter and the July 21, 2000 Second Rejection Letter. Thus, it is not a timely challenge to either decision, and must be dismissed on those grounds. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Morrisville-Eaton Central School System, Morrisville, New York, on October 11, 2000 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gregory M. Beall, Morrisville-Eaton Central School System, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-93A1.txt
  • amend their FCC Form 471s to remove ineligible services, including Priority Two services to which an entity is not entitled, after the closure of the FCC Form 471 filing window deadline. Because none of La Crosse's arguments provide grounds for relief, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2001, by the School District of La Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tom Ward, School District of La Crosse, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-940A1.txt
  • of the record, we find that Deer Park did not satisfy minimum processing standards in Funding Year 4, because the Street Address, P.O. Box or Route Number in Block 1, Item 4a was left blank. Therefore, we must affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Deer Park Community Consolidated Elementary School District No. 82, Ottawa, Illinois, on June 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Conrad Spirrison, Deer Park Community Consolidated Elementary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-941A1.txt
  • the 30-day filing period for Funding Year 2. By e-mail dated March 27, 2002, Doolittle confirmed that it had applied for and received the same funding in a separate application and requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn because such application duplicated the present application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Doolittle West School, Chicago, Illinois, on November 16, 2000 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Eugene Dumas, Chicago Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 16, 2000 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-942A1.txt
  • the submitted application, a copy of which is in the record before us, Worksheet C is not present. We therefore find that Intelenet did not submit Worksheet C along with its application and that SLD correctly rejected Intelenet's application for failure to satisfy minimum processing standards. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, on July 17, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bob G. Carnal, Intelenet Commission, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17, 2001 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-943A1.txt
  • applications that fail minimum processing standards has already been affirmed by the Commission. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the ultimate responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Chicago Community Unit School District 187, North Chicago, Illinois, on July 13, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tyrone Pipkin, North Chicago Community Unit School District 187,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-944A1.txt
  • standards is submitted. As SLD noted, both the corrections to OLL's original application form and the new application using the correct form were submitted after the close of the filing window. Thus, SLD correctly found that OLL's application had not been submitted within the filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed by Our Lady of Loretto, Redford, Mississippi, on July 11, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynne Wendt, Our Lady of Loretto, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-945A1.txt
  • process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Springfield's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, New Jersey, on May 23, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniela Tattoli, Spingfield Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 23,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-94A1.txt
  • jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately predict the total amount of priority one services requested in a year as required to apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Valliant's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Valliant Independent School District 11, Ada, Oklahoma, on April 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Debi Sovereign, Kellogg Consulting, L.L.C., on behalf of Valliant Independent School District 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-956A1.txt
  • be considered within the window. An applicant must further take responsibility for the actions of those employees or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Information Technology Department, State of North Dakota, Bismarck, North Dakota, on October 17, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Curtis Wolfe, Information Technology Department, State of North
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-95A1.txt
  • cost of the eligible and ineligible components. Thus, where SLD has requested but not received a specific breakdown of ineligible and eligible costs in a funding request, SLD is warranted and, indeed, obligated to construe the entire request as ineligible so as to avoid funding ineligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chelmsford Public Schools, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, on June 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bernard DiNatale, Chelmsford Public School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, File No. SLD-121771,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-101A1.txt
  • the applicant gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Mirrer Yeshiva fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mirrer Yeshiva Educational Institute, Brooklyn, New York on February 20, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1025A1.txt
  • the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. La Salle's reasons of misunderstanding and need for the funding are not a special circumstance warranting a waiver. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by La Salle Institute, Troy, New York on March 15, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William P. Maloney III, La Salle Institute, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1026A1.txt
  • necessitate conflict resolution, or excessively delayed before notifying an applicant of problems with an FCC Form 470, such circumstances are not present here. Thus, the circumstances described by Lauderdale are not special circumstances warranting a waiver. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny Lauderdale's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lauderdale County Board of Education, Florence, Alabama, on August 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Fulmer, Lauderdale County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1027A1.txt
  • Misunderstanding of the rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Neither is the threat that denial of funding may have a detrimental impact on a particular school or library. Therefore, we affirm the Administrator and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Ridgemont Public Library, Mt. Victory, Ohio, on January 29, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy J. Terrill, Ridgemont Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-102A1.txt
  • (as one of its staff personnel eventually did) or contacting SLD directly. Either method would have apprised it of the funding decision in time to meet all applicable deadlines. Thus, we find that Port Angeles has not demonstrated circumstances warranting a deviation from the general rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Port Angeles School District 121, Port Angeles, Washington, on July 2, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau Facsimile from Jim Bennett, Olympic Peninsula Consultants, on behalf of Port Angeles
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-103A1.txt
  • held that, absent special circumstances, applicants who request waiver of the FCC Form 471 deadline will be denied. Here, Gunter fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its applications. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Gunter Independent School District, Gunter, Texas, on March 1 and 28, 2002 ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503; Letters from Dwana Uselton, Gunter Independent School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-104A1.txt
  • correct the allowable contract date, contract award date, and contract numbers in its FRNs. Because the new FCC Form 470 was inconsistent with that information in its FRNs, and because the old FCC Form 470 did not support the FRNs, we conclude that SLD properly denied funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services, Jackson, Mississippi on February 27, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Willie Blackmon, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-105A1.txt
  • failure to mention the problem warrants relief from the failure to submit a complete application. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on applicants the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Locust Valley Library, Locust Valley, New York, on January 11, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Salvatore Marino, Locust Valley Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-106A1.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Paso Robles failed to file an appeal of the July 26, 2001 FCC Form 471 Certification Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Paso Robles's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Paso Robles Public Schools, Paso Robles, California, on February 20, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Laurie Crowe, Paso Robles Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-107A1.txt
  • Because Our Lady of Lourdes failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Our Lady of Lourdes's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady of Lourdes School, Melbourne, Florida, on January 15, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeanette B. Colburn, Our Lady of Lourdes School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-108A1.txt
  • Commission only upon receipt. Because the 30-day period has been extended by an additional 30 days for requests for review, Ubly's October 15, 2001 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Ubly's Request for Review and direct SLD to review Ubly's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ubly Community Schools, Ubly, Michigan on March 4, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Evelyn Smaglinski, Ubly Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-109A1.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because West Branch failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss West Branch's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by West Branch Community Schools, West Branch, Iowa, on March 4, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig Artist, West Branch Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-110A1.txt
  • in a letter to SLD that the signature was missing on the Form 471. Thus, consistent with our precedent in the South Barber Order, we conclude that SLD's decision is supported by precedent and the underlying record. We therefore affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Berks County Intermediate Unit, Alsace School on March 25, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert Lipton, Berks County Intermediate Unit, Alsace School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-111A1.txt
  • has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its appeals. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Gloversville has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gloversville Enlarged School District, Gloversville, New York, on February 15, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-112A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, S.C. Governor's School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by S.C. Governor's School for Science and Mathematics, Hartsville, South Carolina, on January 8, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1138A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District, Downieville, California on February 12, 2003, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1139A1.txt
  • its FCC Form 471, ten months after it learned that Comcast had agreed to continue the contract and the filing window had closed. In light of these considerations, we find that Hatboro-Horsham's argument does not justify a waiver of our rules and deny Hatboro-Horsham's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Hatboro-Horsham School District, Horsham, Pennsylvania on February 20, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Casagrand, Hatboro-Horsham School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-113A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 31, 2001, by Northland Community Schools, Remer, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Doro, Northland Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 31, 2001 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-114A1.txt
  • fails to establish conclusively that Albany signed its application on that same date. As a result, we find that Albany has failed to provide the Commission with persuasive evidence that demonstrates that it complied with the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We, therefore, deny Albany's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Albany Public Library, Albany, New York, on January 31, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Patricia M. Hollman, Albany Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-115A1.txt
  • is unfortunate that WestCEL's error in following the competitive bidding rules resulted in denial of its Funding Year 2001 request, as stated above, it is administratively necessary for the applicant to bear the burden of understanding program rules and procedures. We, therefore, deny WestCEL's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by WestCEL, Rangley, Colorado, on March 4, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Chris Brubaker, WestCEL, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed March 4, 2002 (Request for Review). See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-116A1.txt
  • funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. In particular, failure to comply with the competitive bidding requirements must result in a denial of support by SLD. We, therefore, deny Albuquerque's Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System, Albuquerque, New Mexico, on December 20, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John Godfrey, Albuquerque/Bernalillo Library System, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-117A1.txt
  • ultimately responsible for the timely submission of its appeals. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that St. Norbert has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Norbert School, Northbrook, Illinois on March 21, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-118A1.txt
  • its filing deadlines. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of its appeal to SLD if it wishes its appeal to be considered on the merits. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John's Preparatory School, Astoria, New York on March 21, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-119A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Chelsea School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chelsea School, Chelsea, Maine on March 11, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-120A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Apostles School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Queen of Apostles School, Alexandria, Virginia on March 5, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-121A1.txt
  • November 16, 2001, was timely. Therefore, we reverse the Administrator's Decision on Appeal, and remand to SLD for it to address Calhoun's SLD Appeal on the merits. In doing so, we emphasize that we make no determination as to whether Calhoun is ultimately entitled to any relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Calhoun School, New York, New York on December 7, 2001, IS GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to SLD for consideration of the Calhoun School's appeal on the merits. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-122A1.txt
  • School's ability to appeal was prejudiced by SLD's unreasonable delay in responding to Apostles School's request for a copy of the missing page from the Funding Commitment Decision Letter. Therefore, we grant Queen of Apostles' Request for Review and remand its application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Queen of Apostles School, Alexandria, Virginia on March 5, 2002, IS GRANTED and its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig Wojay, Queen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-123A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Washington County fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington County Educational Service Center, Marietta, Ohio on March 4, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-124A1.txt
  • responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its appeals. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Therefore, we conclude that Granger School has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Granger School District No. 204, Granger School, Washington, on February 27, 2002, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-128A1.txt
  • PowerVault servers comprise more than 30% of the funding request. Specifically, the PowerVault servers cost $375,118, or 69% of the total request of $539,888. Because more than 30% of FRN 429028 was properly found to be ineligible, we affirm SLD's decision denying funding for the entire request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Western Heights School District I-41, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on May 10, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Western Heights School District I-41,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1456A1.txt
  • items were determined to be eligible under the Internet access category of service in the Commission's Universal Service Order. We agree. Because we find that granting the Request is warranted based on these grounds, we need not address the other arguments raised in the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on behalf of Barberton City School District, Barberton, Ohio on August 1, 2002 IS GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1569A1.txt
  • has modified the instructions for Funding Year 2003, and the instructions now state ``if the application type is consortium, a completed Block 4 Worksheet C must be submitted.'' We therefore reverse SLD's decision and remand Petitioner's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Western New York Regional Information Center, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and the applications of Erie 1 Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Erie 2 - Chautauqua/Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Cattaraugus/Allegany Board of Cooperative Education Service, Orleans/Niagara Board
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1570A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School District of Durand, Durand, Wisconsin on January 22, 2003, IS DISMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1573A1.txt
  • Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator). On October 2, 2002, Christian County appealed the decision to the Federal Communications Commission. Since the Request for Review was filed, SLD reconsidered its denial. Therefore, we dismiss Christian County's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Christian County Public School District, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, on October 2, 2002 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bruce Lindsey, Christian County Public School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1574A1.txt
  • on or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Clifton filed its appeal on March 25, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 25, 2003, by Clifton High School, Clifton, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sheila Musselman, Clifton High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 25, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1575A1.txt
  • on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gardner Unified School District 231, Gardner, Kansas on December 12, 2002, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1576A1.txt
  • special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 26, 2003, by Genoa-Kingston School District 424, Kingston, Illinois, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1577A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lucia Mar Unified School District, Arroyo Grande, California on April 16, 2003 IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1578A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Riverside County filed its appeal on March 3, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 3, 2003, by Riverside County Office of Education, Riverside, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Spires, Riverside County Office of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1579A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Woodbridge Township's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Woodbridge Township may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 17, 2003, by Woodbridge Township School District, Woodbridge, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Esolda, Woodbridge Township School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1580A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Yeshiva Rav filed its appeal on March 26, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 26, 2003, by Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nechama Green, Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2003
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-181A1.txt
  • a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Boardman's reason is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boardman Local Schools, Youngstown, Ohio, on July 31, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robert J. Wright, Boardman Local Schools, Youngstown, Ohio, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-182A1.txt
  • alone'' automated catalogue or an internal system. We find that SLD erred in denying Rochester's request. Frame Relay 56K connections are eligible for discounts as telecommunications services, irrespective of the fact that they may link to a Library Automated Catalogue, which is not itself eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rochester Public Library, Rochester, Pennsylvania on April 22, 2002 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application for discounts filed by Rochester Public Library IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for further review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1885A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Grainfield's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Grainfield may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 18, 2003, by Grainfield City Library, Grainfield, Kansas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Anna Whiteman, Grainfield City Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1921A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Northside Center's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Northside Center may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 31, 2003, by Northside Center for Child Development, Inc., New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paula Magnus, Northside Center for Child Development,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1922A1.txt
  • (Administrator) to deny funding because of competitive bidding issues related to Orleans Parish's FCC Form 470 and Requests for Proposal. On May 22, 2003, Orleans Parish requested that its Requests for Review be withdrawn because it has appealed to SLD and is waiting for SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Orleans Parish School District, New Orleans, Louisiana, on March 21, 2003 ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letters from George Watts, Orleans Parish School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1923A1.txt
  • of the late-filed application, it was the Springfield's responsibility to file a timely and complete application before the close of the filing window. As a result, we do not agree that this is sufficient justification for waiver. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Springfield School District on December 4, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joseph Silver, Springfield School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 4, 2002 (Waiver Request). Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1945A1.txt
  • Federal Register, providing legal notice to all parties. Therefore, SLD was not required to re-announce this policy in each affected Funding Year 1998 funding decision. In sum, we conclude that SLD correctly found the SLD Appeal to be untimely, and uphold SLD's dismissal of the GCI's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by General Communication, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, on March 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey APPENDIX A Applicant Name: File No: Funding Request Nos.: Alaska Gateway School District 102570 117391, 117411, 117460 Aleutian East Borough School District 70690 73774 Bering
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1946A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Ahead Communications' Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Ahead Communications may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 14, 2003, by Ahead Communications Systems, Middlebury, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Theresa DeNuzzo, Ahead Communications Systems, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1947A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Federal Way's Requests for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Federal Way may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on May 13, 2003, by Federal Way Public Schools, Federal Way, Washington, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandy Nelson, Federal Way Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2195A1.txt
  • we dismiss as moot Wray's Waiver Request for FRNs 746217, 746370, 746485, 746562, 746582, 746700, and 748073. On June 26, 2003, Wray filed a Request to Withdraw its Waiver Request for FRN 746497. We grant Wray's Request to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss the Request for Waiver. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Wray School District RD2, Wray, Colorado on September 13, 2002, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Robyn Custer, Wray School District RD-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2286A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Anderson County filed its appeal on June 10, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 10, 2003, by Anderson County School District, Clinton, Tennessee, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Georgia Morrow, E-Rate Consulting, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 10, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2288A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Blount County filed its appeal on May 29, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 29, 2003, by Blount County Schools, Maryville, Tennessee, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alvin Hord, Blount County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 29, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2289A1.txt
  • August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Colorado Springs SD 11 filed its appeal on June 25, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 25, 2003, by Colorado Springs School District 11, Colorado Springs, Colorado, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Raymond Caplinger, Colorado Springs School District 11, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2290A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss Linden's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Linden may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 29, 2003, by Linden Public Schools, Linden, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Frank Taranto, Linden Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2291A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, New Haven filed its appeal on February 20, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2003, by New Haven Public Schools, New Haven, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Reginald Mayo, New Haven Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2292A1.txt
  • Therefore, we grant the request for review and remand Kohl's application to SLD for consideration. However, by remanding we do not suggest an outcome for Kohl's application. Furthermore, because we have granted Kohl's request for review, we find it unnecessary to consider its waiver request. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Rachel Kohl Community Library, Glenn Mills, Pennsylvania, on October 30, 2002 IS GRANTED AND REMANDED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kathleen Pileggi, Rachel Kohl Community Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2433A1.txt
  • to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Bliss School District' Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Bliss School District may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 5, 2003, by Bliss School District 234, Bliss, Idaho, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kevin Lancaster, Bliss School District 234, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2434A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Iditarod Area's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Iditarod Area may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 12, 2003, by Iditarod Area School District, McGrath, Alaska, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Isabelle Harrington, Iditarod Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2435A1.txt
  • after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, USD No. 507 filed its appeal on June 10, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 10, 2003, by Unified School District No. 507, Satanta, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Monty Brown, Unified School District No. 507, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-243A1.txt
  • program's rules and procedures. The circumstances described by Glover do not constitute special circumstances for purposes of our waiver standard. Therefore, we conclude that Glover has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Glover Elementary School, Broken Bow, Oklahoma, on January 18, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jon Tuck, Glover Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 18, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-244A1.txt
  • merit a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, Union Township's claims that its applications were late due to incorrect advice from SLD is insufficient to justify a waiver. We conclude that Union Township has not demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Union Township School, Hampton, New Jersey, on January 16, 2002, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michelle Burton, Union Township School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 16, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-245A1.txt
  • is cutting expenses in the budget unconnected to its discounted service obligations to cover the shortfall. Similarly, Yeshiva should be permitted to demonstrate that it can cover the entire $18,175.36 amount of its share of the costs, including the $175.36 amount not covered in its original budget. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Beginning with Children Charter School, Brooklyn, New York, on May 14, 2002 IS GRANTED, and its application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Karlin-Stolin, Brooklyn, New York, on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2562A1.txt
  • County requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 331196. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Andrews County's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 331196. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Andrews County's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed September 9, 2002, by Andrews County Library, Andrews, Texas, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Elizabeth Stottlemyre, Andrews County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 9, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2563A1.txt
  • the general rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on applicants. We conclude that Baldwin Park fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baldwin Park Unified School District, Baldwin Park, California, on July 12, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2564A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, DeLeon requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 338009. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved DeLeon's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 338009. Accordingly, the Division dismisses DeLeon's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed August 26, 2002, by DeLeon Independent School District, DeLeon, Texas, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Otwell, DeLeon Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2565A1.txt
  • County requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 332461. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Grant County's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 332461. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Grant County's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed October 16, 2002, by Grant County Board of Education, Williamstown, Kentucky, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Becky Epperson, Grant County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2566A1.txt
  • deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 2, 2003, by Holly School District, Holly, Colorado, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2567A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Tunbridge requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 337012. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Tunbridge's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 337012. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Tunbridge's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed October 31, 2002, by Tunbridge Public Library, Tunbridge, Vermont, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jean Wolfe, Tunbridge Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 31, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2568A1.txt
  • that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRNs) 345831 and 345658. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Wareham's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 345831 and 345658. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Wareham's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed September 11, 2002, by Wareham School District, Wareham, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeff Hathaway, Wareham School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2582A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 7, 2003, by School District of Somerset, Somerset, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED as it relates to the August 6, 2002 decision, IS DENIED as it relates to the February 13, 2003 decision, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2583A1.txt
  • not to file an appeal, Commission precedent establishes that where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2002, by Mifflin County Library, Lewistown, Pennsylvania, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2584A1.txt
  • Saint Michael School fails to provide evidence that it did not receive the July 24, 2002 notice. The mere assertion that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Michael School, Chicago, Illinois on March 25, 2003, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2585A1.txt
  • strict adherence to the rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. Staffing problems do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 20, 2002, by Bemus Point Central School District, Bemus Point, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan G. Gauch, Bemus Point Central School District, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2586A1.txt
  • Park seeks a waiver of the deadline for requests for review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company. Since Galena Park timely filed their appeal and offered evidence thereof, we dismiss as moot Galena Park's Request for Waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Galena Park Independent School District is DISMISSED AS MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeffrey Lorentz, Galena Park Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 27, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2587A1.txt
  • of program rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Further, we have consistently held in the past that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Saint Katherine Drexel School on July 3, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rev. Kevin P. Murray, Saint Katherine Drexel School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2588A1.txt
  • the general rule and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Here, Twin Hills fails to present good cause as to why it should receive a waiver of the filing requirements. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Twin Hills School, Okmulgee, Oklahoma, on August 19, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donna Martin, Twin Hills School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 19, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2917A1.txt
  • and unreasonable, as well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois on May 15, 2003, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2918A1.txt
  • and unreasonable, as well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by the Edcouch-Elsa Independent School District, Edcouch, Texas on November 1, 2002, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Funding Year 2001 deadline for installation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2919A1.txt
  • to the authority of the tribal governments qualify as local health departments. We find it appropriate to leave this determination for RHCD to make in the first instance, and therefore remand the pending applications to RHCD for such a determination, and for all appropriate further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 23, 2001 by Kawerak, Inc. on behalf of Health Care Providers No. 10687, 10690, 10692, 10694, 10695, 10697, 10698, 10699, 10701, 10702, 10703, and 10745, IS GRANTED, and these applications are REMANDED to RHCD for further review. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2964A1.txt
  • meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Brady ISD has not presented special circumstances that would justify a waiver in this instance. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 27, 2003, by Brady Independent School District, Brady, Texas, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2965A1.txt
  • to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss City of Boston's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, City of Boston may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 8, 2003, by W. T. Rich Company, Inc., Allston, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ralph Rich, W. T. Rich Company, Inc., to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2966A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Paramus filed its appeal on September 3, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 3, 2003, by Thomas Communications & Technology, on behalf of Paramus School District, Syracuse, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michelle Chemotti, Thomas Communications &
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2967A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Santa Maria's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Santa Maria may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 5, 2003, by Santa Maria Addolorata, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kermit Lattimore, Educational Computing Solutions, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2968A1.txt
  • deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 19, 2003, by CenturyTel, Inc., Monroe, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2969A1.txt
  • of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Edwin Gould filed its appeal on June 17, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 17, 2003, by Edwin Gould Academy, Chestnut Ridge, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Ann Dowling, Edwin Gould Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3047A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, NCOCC failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on NCOCC misunderstanding of the timing deadline does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 21, 2003, by North Central Ohio Computer Cooperative, Mansfield, Ohio, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3048A1.txt
  • this evidence in the first instance and determine what amount of funding, if any, is supported by new bills, we remand the application to SLD for consideration of FRN 509548. We affirm SLD's conclusion, however, that the ultimate burden of proving eligibility remains with the applicant. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request filed by DeLeon Independent School District, DeLeon, Texas, on March 13, 2002, is GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3049A1.txt
  • wait 28-days prior to signing and submitting its FCC Form 471 from the date its FCC Form 470 was posted. Unlike in the Cochrane-Fountain City School District Order, we therefore find that Harrisonburg failed to adhere to applicable requirements with respect to the Commission's competitive bidding policy. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Harrisonburg City School District, Harrisonburg City, Virginia, on January 16, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review from Denise Dawson, Harrisonburg City Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3050A1.txt
  • Commitment Decision Letter by periodically checking SLD's website or contacting SLD directly. Either method would have apprised it of the funding decision in time to meet all applicable deadlines. Therefore, we conclude that Smithton has failed to demonstrate circumstances that would warrant waiver of the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School District, Smithton, Missouri, on November 5, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bill Hadlow, Smithton School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 5, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3051A1.txt
  • submission of the application. Finally, Kansas's assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on schools within its borders does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Southwest Kansas Educational Consortium on July 11, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carol J. Swinney, Southwest Kansas Educational Consortium, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3052A1.txt
  • submission of the application. Finally, Warren's assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on schools within its borders does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Warren County School District on October 4, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Amy Stewart, Warren County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3053A1.txt
  • and Internet access, stating that the Commission may not waive a statutory deadline such as the October 28, 2001 deadline. Similarly, Gowanda seeks discounts for telecommunications services and Internet access. We conclude that our determination in the East Carroll Order applies to the instant Request for Waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Western New York Regional Information Center on behalf of Gowanda Central School District, West Seneca, New York on December 16, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3054A1.txt
  • by filing the corrected version shortly after being apprised of the mistake. Moreover, the deadline involved a first-time information request. Woodburn also sought discounts only for telecommunications services, and the Commission has authority to waive the deadline with respect to requests that involve only telecommunications services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Woodburn School District, Woodburn, Oregon on November 27, 2002 IS GRANTED and REMANDED TO SLD to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Paul A. Goodwin,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3104A1.txt
  • attaches a copy of its Priority Overnight Receipt from FedEx, dated January 17, 2002. Based on the underlying record, we conclude that Maine's application was postmarked by the filing window deadline. We therefore grant Maine's Request for Review and remand Maine's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Maine State Library, Augusta, Maine on January 17, 2003 IS GRANTED, and Maine's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-31A1.txt
  • even when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, Blessed Sacrament fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 16, 2002, by Blessed Sacrament Catholic School, Newark, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-32A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Clovis Municipal's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Clovis Municipal's initial request, Clovis Municipal may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 27, 2002, by Clovis Municipal Schools, Clovis, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Lamb, Clovis Municipal Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-33A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-33A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-33A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Father Yermo's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Father Yermo's initial request, Father Yermo may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 4, 2002, by Father Yermo High School, El Paso, Texas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Elia Hernandez, Father Yermo High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3463A1.txt
  • than strict adherence to the rule. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of filing properly on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dickey LaMoure Multidistrict Special Education, LaMoure, North Dakota, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Rhoda Young, Dickey LaMoure Multidistrict Special Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 8,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3464A1.txt
  • not have prevented SLD from data entering ESC's application. We note that, under current minimum processing standards for Block 1, applicants are required only to include (1) the name of the Billed Entity or the Entity Number; (2) the Funding Year; and (3) the Contact Person Name. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Education Service Center Region 12, Waco, Texas, on August 10, 2001 ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rob Scott, Education Service Center
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3465A1.txt
  • FCC Form 471 was received outside of the 28-day waiting period. As a result, we find that Grain Valley has failed to provide the Commission with persuasive evidence that demonstrates that it complied with the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We, therefore, deny Grain Valley's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by Grain Valley R-5 School District, Grain Valley, Missouri, on March 11, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan Welch, Grain Valley R-5 School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3466A1.txt
  • SLD's website provides urban/rural information for use by the applicant to determine its discount percentage. In addition, the Wireline Competition Bureau has previously held that the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided rests with applicants. Therefore, we deny Highland Valley's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Highland School District No. 305, Craigmont, Idaho, on August 1, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ivy Breen, Highland School District No. 305, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3467A1.txt
  • day that the president was available for a two week time period. Hughesville also states that it had only 21 days to review and decide on its contract. We find that SLD's decision is consistent with our precedent and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hughesville Public Library, Hughesville, Pennsylvania on August 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lena K. Carichner, Hughesville Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 9, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3468A1.txt
  • circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Magen David fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a waiver our rules. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Magen David Yeshiva, Brooklyn, New York on October 24, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sheila Rubin, Magen David Yeshiva, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3469A1.txt
  • with our review of the record. Under our review of the record, and in light of the Hardee County Order, we find that Northwest complied with the deadline. We emphasize that, in remanding the applications for SLD's review, we make no conclusions as to their merits. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 19, 2002 by Northwest Tri-County Intermediate, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED, and we REMAND to the Administrator for further processing consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Vince Humes, Northwest
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3470A1.txt
  • the FCC Form 470 at issue in the instant Request for Review was intended for requests in Funding Year 2000, rather than for the previous funding year. Therefore, consistent with the Commission's precedent established in the Henrico Order, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Oklahoma City School District I-89, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on October 12, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Oklahoma
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3471A1.txt
  • competitive bidding rules. Pittsylvania may extend their existing contracts for non-recurring services for FRN 260055 voluntarily until September 30, 2004, without having to comply with the Commission's competitive bidding process. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the request for waiver of section 54.507(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d), filed by Pittsylvania County Schools, Chatham, Virginia on December 20, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3472A1.txt
  • rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Prospect Sierra has not presented any arguments or unique circumstances that would warrant granting a waiver of this rule. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Prospect Sierra School, El Cerrito, California, on July 2, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dena Watson-Lamprey, Prospect Sierra School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3473A1.txt
  • a good faith effort, they do not demonstrate sufficient grounds to justify waiver of the Commission's rules. The Bureau has consistently declined to waive the Commission's rules based on an applicant's misunderstanding of the rules. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Roselle Catholic High School, Roselle, New Jersey, on August 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan MacDonell, Roselle Catholic High School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3474A1.txt
  • meter. We find that in this particular situation, however, given there is precedent for considering evidence from licensed postage meters, it is appropriate that St. John's application be considered as timely filed. Thus, we grant St. John's Request for Review and we remand their application to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review from St. John Vianney High School, Holmdel, New Jersey, filed on August 28, 2001, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3475A1.txt
  • waste, serves as an additional means of holding applicants accountable for their representations, and assists in the efficient administration of the program. By failing to submit a signature certification, Syracuse-Dunbar omitted the legally binding act that signifies compliance with program rules. We therefore deny Syracuse-Dunbar's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Syracuse-Dunbar-Avoca School District on March 26, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rod Powell, Syracuse-Dunbar-Avoca School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2002 (Waiver Request). Section 54.719(c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3476A1.txt
  • where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Utica City School District, Utica, New York on August 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William J. Thomas, Utica City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3477A1.txt
  • John's FCC Form 471 therefore was untimely because the Item 21 attachment was not submitted within the filing window. Finding no merit to St. John's legal arguments, we affirm the decision of SLD to treat St. John's application as filed outside the Funding Year 2001 filing window. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John Central School, Marietta, Ohio, on August 9, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by St. John Central School, CC Docket Nos.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-34A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-34A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-34A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss HLV Community's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on HLV Community's initial request, HLV Community may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 25, 2002, by HLV Community School District, Victor, Iowa, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lori McClenathan, HLV Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3522A1.txt
  • and that applicants should ensure that if they could not obtain a postmark on that date, they should postmark their application on Saturday, October 27, 2001 at the latest. Because Barre has failed to demonstrate circumstances that would warrant waiver of the deadline, we affirm SLD's decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Barre Supervisory Union District No. 61, Barre, Vermont, on November 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Stephen T. Bartlett, Barre Supervisory Union District No. 61, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3523A1.txt
  • procedures. In order for the program to work efficiently, the applicant must assume responsibility for timely submission of correct application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Crispus Attucks fails to demonstrate a sufficient basis for waiving the Commission's filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Crispus Attucks YouthBuild Charter School, York, Pennsylvania, on June 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Chris Ginder, Crispus Attucks YouthBuild Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3524A1.txt
  • copy of the Block 6 Certification, completed and signed. The record shows that Lynn failed to submit a Block 6 Certification. Thus, Lynn's arguments relating to a server error fail to address the problem of the missing Block 6 Certification. Therefore, we deny Lynn's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lynn Public Library, Mt. Victory, Ohio, on January 29, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gerard Fallon, Lynn Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3525A1.txt
  • after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Memphis City filed its appeal on May 27, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Memphis City School District, Memphis, Tennessee on May 27, 2003, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Hazelton, Memphis City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3526A1.txt
  • the service provider listed on the FCC Form 471 application. It was Waldwick's responsibility to provide SLD with accurate information regarding its agreement with the relevant service provider on the FCC Form 471 application, and such information was not provided. Therefore, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bergen County Technical Schools on behalf of Waldwick School District, Waldwick, New Jersey, on January 28, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from, John A. Serapiglia, Jr., Bergen
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3527A1.txt
  • with our rules and procedures. As for White Plains contention that the flow of information regarding deadlines was interrupted, the FCC has found that confusion about the program's requirements is not grounds for a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by White Plains City School District, White Plains, New York, on January 6, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard C. Lasselle, White Plains City School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3557A1.txt
  • applicants should not be permitted to amend completed FCC Forms 471 to revise its application after closure of the filing window deadline. Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part Gasconade's Request for Review and remand this matter to SLD for processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gasconade County R-1 School District, Hermann, Missouri, on January 16, 2002, is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and REMANDED to SLD for further processing. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-35A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 6, 2002, by Kershaw County School District, Camden, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linda Shaylor, Kershaw County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3630A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Atchison PS filed its appeal on September 22, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 22, 2003, by Atchison Public Schools, Atchison, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Corbin Witt, Atchison Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 22, 2003 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3631A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 25, 2003, by Cedar County Library District, Stockton, Missouri, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3632A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Merely stating that a letter was not received in a timely manner at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 19, 2003, by Monmouth Ocean Educational Services Commission, Tinton Falls, New Jersey, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3634A1.txt
  • forth in the Commission's rules and orders. Specifically, the relevant issue is whether this equipment is ``necessary to transmit information within one or more instructional buildings of a single school campus.'' The type of technology employed to provide this functionality is not relevant to the eligibility determination. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lower Yukon School District, Mountain Village, Alaska, on April 18, 2001 is GRANTED and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ray J.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3635A1.txt
  • the additional documentation that Quillayute provided on appeal. The documentation provided by Quillayute clarifies that the nine cellular phones included in the funding request were for eligible purposes. Accordingly, we grant Quillayute's Request for Review and remand FRN 531822 to SLD for action consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 18, 2001, by Olympic Peninsula Consultants on behalf of Quillayute Valley School District, Forks, Washington IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Bennett,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3636A1.txt
  • therefore categorized as Priority Two internal connections, maintenance on this equipment would also be classified as such. We therefore conclude the SLD appropriately reclassified the funding request as Priority Two internal connections, and that FRN 814245 was correctly denied. Accordingly, we deny Des Moines's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Des Moines Municipal School District No. 22, Des Moines, New Mexico on June 20, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Karen Doherty, Des Moines Municipal School District
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3637A1.txt
  • application that would have allowed SLD to easily discern the appropriate funding year. Specifically, Sayville failed to indicate the service start or end dates for the funding requests in Block 5 of the application. Therefore, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances do not warrant relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sayville Library, Sayville, New York, on July 8, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Marsha Greenspan, Sayville Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 8, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3681A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, West Harvey-Dixmoor filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 6, 2003, by West Harvey-Dixmoor Public School District #147, Harvey, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Garvin Burton, West Harvey-Dixmoor Public School District #147, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-36A1.txt
  • when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Here, St. Patrick School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 26, 2002, by St. Patrick School, Jersey City, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3740A1.txt
  • will be directed to the subcontractor that receives funding from the Good Samaritan under the terms of the Tennessee Order. Further, to the extent that the Good Samaritan receives funding as a subcontractor to ENA, COMAD procedures will be directed to the Good Samaritan. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification filed by BellSouth Corporation on September 30, 2003, is GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Immediate Relief filed by the State of Tennessee, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-379A1.txt
  • form merely serves as a general guide for average completion, and some applications may take longer. In light of these considerations, we conclude that Lacey has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances warranting a deviation from our rules, and therefore, we deny its Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lacey Township School District, Lanoka Harbor, New Jersey, on January 24, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William R. Lake, Lacey Township School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-380A1.txt
  • process, Siskiyou should have been able to turn to other bidders for better service if its choice of provider was not satisfactory. After reviewing the material before us, we conclude that Siskiyou has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Siskiyou Count Library, Yreka, California, on April 26, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Pat Harper and Kathy Fueston, Siskiyou County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-382A1.txt
  • to correct their applications during the appeals process would result in undue confusion, delay, and administrative burden. In conclusion, we find that CSF did not timely comply with SLD's request for validation of its discount rate, and therefore affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Children's Store Front School, New York, New York, on May 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bruno Navasky, Children's Store Front, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-383A1.txt
  • We conclude that the particular facts of this case do not rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. Craig County's inadvertent omission of necessary information from its October Form 486 does not constitute good cause for a waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Craig County Public Schools, New Castle, Virginia on July 22, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Adele Morris, Craig County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 22, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-394A1.txt
  • that SLD erred in denying Norristown's request. Cellular Digital Packet Data service, which is a digital transmission service, is eligible for discounts. It is a telecommunications service, irrespective of the fact that it may link to a Library Automated Catalogue, which is not itself eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Montgomery County-Norristown Public Library, Norristown, Pennsylvania on July 18, 2002 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application for discounts filed by Montgomery County-Norristown Public Library IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-395A1.txt
  • to its filing deadlines. As we have consistently held in the past, it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of its appeals. Therefore, we conclude that Columbus Unified has failed to demonstrate special circumstances upon which its request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on December 2, 2002, by Columbus Unified School District 493, Lawrence, Kansas, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-396A1.txt
  • is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. Thus, Eastchester fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Eastchester Union Free School District, Eastchester, New York, on December 19, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-397A1.txt
  • problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the program's rules and procedures. Here, Huron ISD fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Huron Intermediate School District, Bad Axe, Michigan, on December 19, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-398A1.txt
  • representatives to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Thus, Immaculate Heart fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 17, 2002, by Immaculate Heart of Mary-St. Casimir School, Lansing, Michigan, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-399A1.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD decisions on its behalf. Thus, St. Joseph fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on October 28, 2002, by St. Joseph University Heights, Buffalo, New York, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-39A1.txt
  • deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Petitioner has not submitted adequate proof that the facts relating to its application present special circumstances warranting a waiver of program rules. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by The Bridge Academy, Bridgeport, Connecticut on September 13, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Timothy Dutton, The Bridge Academy, Bridgeport, Connecticut, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-400A1.txt
  • when such persons are away from the office on medical leave or otherwise incapacitated. Thus, St. Lucy School fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal with SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on October 30, 2002, by St. Lucy School, Newark, New Jersey, as well as the request to waive the deadline for filing its appeal with SLD ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-401A1.txt
  • waiver of filing deadlines. Applicants that wait until the last minute before submitting their appeals risk untimely filing. Because Stafford Municipal failed to file a timely appeal, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Stafford Municipal's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Stafford Municipal School District, Stafford, Texas on October 4, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charlotte Holden, Stafford Municipal School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-402A1.txt
  • whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely appeals of SLD funding decisions on its behalf. Here, Stanfield Elementary fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its appeal to SLD. We therefore find no basis for waiving the appeal filing deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 22, 2002, by Stanfield Elementary School District No. 24, Stanfield, Arizona, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-403A1.txt
  • seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because the Welch's Request for Administrator Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, we affirm the Administrator's Decision on Appeal and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Welch Public Schools, Welch, Oklahoma, on December 26, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from R. C. McKeon, Welch Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 26, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-40A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-40A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-40A1.txt
  • from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Petitioner's excuse of employee inexperience is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of program rules. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Harris County School District, Hamilton Georgia on July 30, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Susan Andrews, Harris County Board of Education, Hamilton Georgia, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-41A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-41A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-41A1.txt
  • was omitted from the application. We conclude, however, that SLD's decision is supported by precedent and the underlying record. The record indicates that a completed Block 4 worksheet was not included in Jefferson County's originally filed application. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jefferson County School District, Madras, Oregon on August 19, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kathryn Beebee, Jefferson County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-42A1.txt
  • deviation from the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Santa Ana has not presented any special circumstances warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on July 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-453A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on July 30, 2002, by Dubuque Community Schools, Dubuque, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles Ellis, Dubuque Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 30, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-454A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Huron ISD's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Huron ISD's initial request, Huron ISD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Huron Intermediate School District, Bad Axe, Michigan, on December 19, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Mayes, Huron Intermediate School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-455A1.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the requisite 60-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 5, 2002, by the Spurwink School, Portland, Maine, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Philene Berry, The Spurwink School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 5, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-457A1.txt
  • Rural Health Care Division of the Univeral Service Administrative Company regarding RWHC's requests for universal service support for funding years 2001 and 2002. On January 14, 2003, RWHC submitted a Request to Withdraw the above-captioned petition. We grant the Request to Withdraw and dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to Withdraw submitted by Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative, filed January 14, 2003, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-601A1.txt
  • of judgment along with the appropriate court documents demonstrating resolution. In the event that ECOT ultimately refiles its Request for Review, it should address the impact of the Ohio State Court litigation on ECOT's entitlement to discounts under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow on January 3, 2001 is DISMISSED without prejudice to renew within 60 days of judgment in the Ohio State Court litigation. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-755A1.txt
  • to eligible services. With respect to SLD contacting applicants concerning errors in the applications, the Wireline Competition Bureau has previously held that the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided rests with applicants, not with SLD. Therefore, we deny South Valley's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by South Valley Academy, Albuquerque, New Mexico, on August 12, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Alan Marks, South Valley Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 12, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-756A1.txt
  • the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. An applicant's failure to submit all the required Blocks of the FCC Form 471 does not create special circumstances warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center for Russian Jewry, on behalf of Be'er Hagolah Institute, Brooklyn, New York, on July 16, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Pearl Kaufman, The Center for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-757A1.txt
  • its toll-free number. In addition, lack of Internet access does not provide grounds for relief because information is alternately available through a toll-free telephone number. Finally, continued financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Hasbrouck Heights School District, Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, on February 19, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joseph Bellino, Hasbrouck Heights School District, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-758A1.txt
  • Carlisle Olive's argument that SLD took approximately 10 weeks to notify the library that it had missed the deadline is irrelevant to the waiver analysis. Therefore, we conclude that New Carlisle Olive has failed to demonstrated special circumstances upon which its Waiver Request can be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by New Carlisle Olive, New Carlisle, Indiana, on April 12, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Electronic mail from Stephen Boggs, New Carlisle Olive Township Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-761A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Fair Play's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Fair Play's initial request, Fair Play may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fair Play R-2 School District, Fair Play, Missouri, on February 20, 2003, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Greg Whaley and Brian Mitchell, Fair Play R-2 School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-762A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Glades County's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Glades County's initial request, Glades County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Glades County School Board, Moore Haven, Florida, on January 29, 2003, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Norman Hughes, Glades County School Board, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-763A1.txt
  • that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Numbers (FRN) 145268 and 145295. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Mitel's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRNs 145268 and 145295. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Mitel's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 29, 2002, by Mitel Communications Solutions, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Correen Oestreich, Mitel Communications Solutions, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 29, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-764A1.txt
  • the applicant and the Commission should Marshall County find it necessary, following SLD's decision on its appeal, to seek further review from the Commission. We emphasize that, in remanding the appeal of FRN 582629 for SLD's review and adjudication, we make no conclusions as to its merits. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 4, 2001 by the Marshall County School District, Moundsville, West Virginia, IS DENIED as to FRN 592758 and REMANDED as to FRN 582629 for SLD to resolve in the first instance. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-844A1.txt
  • the general rule. We therefore grant a waiver of the October 28, 2001 deadline to the Applicants, and remand to SLD for further processing of their corrected FCC Forms 486. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) that the Waiver Request filed by Eastern Lebanon County School District, Myerstown, Pennsylvania, on February 20, 2002 IS GRANTED, and these applications are REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Waiver Request filed by Newport News Public Schools, Newport
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-852A1.txt
  • of incorrect advice from SLD. Commission precedent establishes that where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, Talladega, Alabama on January 13, 2003, IS DISMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-853A1.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Glen Mills' Request for Waiver to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Glen Mills' initial request, Glen Mills may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Glen Mills Schools, Concordville, Pennsylvania, on February 24, 2003, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary McNeal, Glen Mills Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-854A1.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Norfolk Public Schools' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Norfolk Public Schools' initial request, Norfolk Public Schools may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Norfolk Public Schools, Norfolk, Virginia, on December 24, 2002, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Futty, Julie Keesling, and Frederick Schmitt, Norfolk Public Schools, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-855A1.txt
  • of incorrect advice from SLD. Commission precedent establishes that where a party has received erroneous advice, the government is not estopped from enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ventnor Educational Community Complex, Ventnor City, New Jersey on January 30, 2003, IS DISMISSED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1059A1.txt
  • a Funding Commitment Decision Letter that was dated October 20, 2000. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that the Schools and Libraries Division received and accepted Catholic Memorial's FCC Form 486 for FRN 395982. Accordingly, Catholic Memorial's Request for Waiver is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed February 26, 2002, by Catholic Memorial School, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Peter Burleigh, Catholic Memorial, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-108A1.txt
  • to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice City of Espanola's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, City of Espanola may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 7, 2003, by City of Espanola Finance Department, Espanola, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lillian Brooks, City of Espanola Finance Department, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-109A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Hampton County's Request for Waiver to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Hampton County may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on October 21, 2003, by Hampton County School District 2, Estill, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Thompson, Hampton County School District 2, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-110A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Monessen requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 602799. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Monessen's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 602799. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Monessen's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed March 10, 2003, by Monessen Public Library, Monessen, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from S. Fred Natale, Monessen Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-111A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Murrieta Valley's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Murrieta Valley may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 12, 2003, by Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Murrieta, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Julie April, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1128A1.txt
  • manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly where relief is contrary to a rule. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Four County and North Penn have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 26, 2003, by Four County Library System, Vestal, New York, IS DISMISSED, and the Requests for Review filed on March 22, 2004, by Gloucester City Library, Gloucester City, New Jersey and on May 13, 2003, by North Penn School District,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-112A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, NAFI failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on NAFI misunderstanding of the timing deadline does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on April 21, 2003, by North American Family Institute, Danvers, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Daniel Nakamoto, North American Family Institute, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-113A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Alachua failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on Alachua misunderstanding of the program rules does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on June 24, 2003, by School Board of Alachua County, Gainesville, Florida, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-114A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss St. Catherine's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, St. Catherine may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 17, 2003, by Saint Catherine of Genoa School, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Collins, Saint Catherine of Genoa School, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-115A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Tunkhannock's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Tunkhannock may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 31, 2003, by Tunkhannock Area School District, Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Barb Landon, Tunkhannock Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1253A1.txt
  • circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and where strict compliance with the rule would be inconsistent with the public interest. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the applicants here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the referenced Requests for Review filed by Bedford Area School District, Bedford, Pennsylvania, on May 12, 2003; Glenwood Community School District, Glenwood, Iowa, on May 22, 2003; Hunterdon Central Regional High School, Flemington, New Jersey, on May 12, 2003; Immaculate Conception School, Everett, Washington, on May 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1394A1.txt
  • existence of New Haven results in an improved educational experience for adult students in New Haven, Connecticut. However, the provision of discounted services for entities such as adult education centers is beyond the scope of our statutory authority and would divert support from the program's intended beneficiaries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Haven Adult Education Center on August 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Vincent Del Prete, New Haven Adult Education Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1395A1.txt
  • under program rules in effect for Funding Year 2001. We emphasize that the ultimate burden of proving eligibility remains with the applicant. Accordingly, we grant in part Fairfax's Request for Review of FRN 673750 and remand in part to SLD for action consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review of Funding Request Number 673756 filed by Funds for Learning on behalf of Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia on September 6, 2001, IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1396A1.txt
  • from an SLD employee does not absolve an applicant from following the program requirements. The mere assertion that a letter was not received is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. Consistent with existing precedent as described above, the Telecommunications Access Policy Division denies the above-captioned Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Austin Independent School District, Austin, Texas, on November 19, 2002; Avon Local Board of Education, Avon, Ohio, on November 6, 2002; Navajo Evangelical Lutheran Mission, Rock Point, Arizona, on June 13, 2003; and Vermont Academy, Saxtons River, Vermont, on October 15, 2002; are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1397A1.txt
  • Valley requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 849626. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Castro Valley's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 849626. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Castro Valley's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed January 13, 2004, by Castro Valley Unified School District, Castro Valley, California, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steve Mei, Castro Valley Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1398A1.txt
  • meet the October 28, 2001 deadline for Funding Year 2001 discounts could obtain discounts for services received on or after the date that its FCC Form 486 was postmarked. Consistent with our precedent in Craig County, we affirm SLD's decision and deny LPSD's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request filed by Lake and Peninsula School District, King Salmon, Alaska, on September 16, 2002 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dennis Niedermeyer, Lake and Peninsula School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1399A1.txt
  • mechanism. Specifically, Ridgewood requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 644434. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Ridgewood's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 644434. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Ridgewood's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed February 6, 2003, by Ridgewood Public Schools, Ridgewood, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carole K. Casey, Ridgewood Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1400A1.txt
  • District requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 761447. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Miller District's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 761447. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Miller District's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 6, 2003, by Miller District #210, Marseilles, Illinois, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jane M. Bauer, Miller District #210, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1503A1.txt
  • a detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Lucia Mar Unified School District, Arroyo Grande, California, on May 24, 2002; Ontario Local Schools, Mansfield, Ohio, on October 9, 2002; School Administrative District 04, Guilford, Maine, on December 19, 2002; and Traverse City Area Public Schools, Traverse City, Michigan, on March 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1842A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Holyoke's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Holyoke may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 18, 2003, by Holyoke School District Re-1J, Holyoke, Colorado IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carla Porter, Holyoke School District, to Federal Communications Commission, dated December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2047A1.txt
  • party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. NPP should have filed its Request for Review by April 8, 2002 in order for it to be timely filed. NPP filed its Request for Review on October 9, 2003. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 9, 2003, by National Public Phone Company IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Anita Cheng Assistant Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Craig D. Joyce, Counsel for National Public Phone Company to the Federal Communications Commission, dated October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2485A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Allendale filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 15, 2004 by Allendale County Schools, Allendale, South Carolina IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Renee Sanders, Allendale County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-254A1.txt
  • equal footing. Further, filing an application without the certification page does not constitute substantial compliance, because signature certification is fundamental to the administration of the SLD program. Finally, financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Requests filed by Blessed Sacrament, Crutcho, Freedom Area and Milwaukee on July 10, June 11, July 5, and July 8, 2002, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-255A1.txt
  • we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Dunellen failed to comply with the deadline and Dunellen's assertions do not justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 17, 2003, by Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings, on behalf of Dunellen School District, Newtown, Pennsylvania, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-256A1.txt
  • strict adherence to the general rule. Parsippany-Troy's reasons are not special circumstances warranting a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. We find that SLD's decision is consistent with our precedent and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by SLD. Therefore, we deny Parsippany-Troy's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Parsippany-Troy Hills Township District, Parsippany, New Jersey on November 5, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles V. Mole, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-257A1.txt
  • rules. We have consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the accurate and timely submission of the application. Further, we have concluded that detrimental impact alone does not create special circumstances that warrant a waiver. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Winans Academy of Performing Arts on October 30, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tony Mottley, Winans Academy of Performing Arts, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2604A1.txt
  • Dutchess County BOCES seeks review of SLD's denial of Dutchess County BOCES' request to receive discounted services. However, since the Request for Review was filed, SLD has granted the relief that Dutchess County BOCES is seeking. Dutchess County BOCES' Request for Review is therefore dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Poughkeepsie, New York, on March 29, 2004 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Acting Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Laura Zylberberg, Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2905A1.txt
  • Year 2000 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved OCM BOCES's request for BEAR payment assistance for Funding Request Numbers 471531, 471623, 480855. Accordingly, the Division dismisses OCM BOCES's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 15, 2004, by Mackenzie Hughes LLP, on behalf of, Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES, Syracuse, New York, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Anthony Hanley, Mackenzie Hughes LLP, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-294A1.txt
  • the Bureau determined that an applicant in Funding Year 2002 filing a consortium application could have reasonably determined that a completed Worksheet A satisfied the relevant worksheet requirement. We therefore reverse SLD's decision and remand ESC's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Educational Service Unit #1, Wakefield, Nebraska on July 18, 2002 IS GRANTED and its application is remanded to SLD for further consideration in accordance with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-295A1.txt
  • would eviscerate the benefits of having a filing window at all. In light of this, we do not believe that the denial of Fennville's request creates the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Fennville Public Schools on December 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jody Osbon/M. Klosner, Fennville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 15, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-296A1.txt
  • to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, we have consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Applicants must comply with program rules, including the application deadline, in order to be eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Freeman School District No. 358 on July 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jan Davis, Freeman School District No. 358, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-297A1.txt
  • general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Griswold's misunderstanding of the Commission's rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny Griswold's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Griswold Community Schools, Griswold, Iowa, on May 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Rich Mortensen, Griswold Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-298A1.txt
  • the Bureau determined that an applicant in Funding Year 2002 filing a consortium application could have reasonably determined that a completed Worksheet A satisfied the relevant worksheet requirement. We therefore reverse SLD's decision and remand Hartford's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hartford Public Schools, Hartford, Connecticut on December 16, 2002 IS GRANTED and its application is remanded to SLD for further consideration in accordance with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2999A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice the Appellants' Requests for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, the Appellants may then appeal to the Commission, if they believe such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on May 19, 2004, by Al-Hikmah Elementary School, Prospect Park, New Jersey, on August 12, 2004, by Genesis School, Kansas City, Missouri, and on June 7, 2004, by Lutheran High School of St. Charles County, St. Peters, Missouri ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-299A1.txt
  • the general rule, and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the general rule. Lafayette's misunderstanding of the Commission's rules is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. Therefore, we affirm SLD and deny Lafayette's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lafayette Township School, Lafayette, New Jersey on November 21, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Carol J. Calella, Lafayette Township School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-300A1.txt
  • Internet access, stating that the Commission may not waive a statutory deadline such as the October 28, 2001 deadline. We conclude that our determination in the East Carroll Order applies to Lake Erie's Request for Review. Therefore, we affirm SLD's decision and deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lake Erie Educational Computer Association on May 29, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lloyd Wright, Lake Erie Educational Computer Association, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-301A1.txt
  • would eviscerate the benefits of having a filing window at all. In light of this, we do not believe that the denial of Maine's request creates the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Maine School Administrative District No. 20 on September 19, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeannette Condon, Maine School Administrative District No. 20, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-302A1.txt
  • (2) facts unknown to petitioner until after the Request for Review was filed. Each of the arguments raised by Marin County in its Petition for Reconsideration was raised in its prior Request for Review, and addressed in the Marin County Order. Therefore, we deny Marin County's Petition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Marin County Office of Education, San Rafael, California, on December 9, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireless Competition Bureau The Petition was filed December 9, 2002, seeking reconsideration of Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-303A1.txt
  • the application. Moreover, Meade's assertion that denial of its application may have a detrimental impact on the service it provides to its patrons does not create the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Meade County Public Library on December 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Mitchell, Meade County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 10, 2002 (Waiver
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-304A1.txt
  • SLD must review and process each year, it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Olathe Public Library on January 17, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mary Linse, Olathe Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 17, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-305A1.txt
  • filing of the application out of window is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of the filing window. The Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Pratt Unified School District No. 382 on December 10, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Bob Lee, Pratt Unified School District No. 382, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-306A1.txt
  • provides documentation indicating that its Form 471 application package was postmarked prior to the close of the filing window deadline. We therefore grant Saint Vincent's request for review and remand the matter to SLD, so that Saint Vincent's Form 471 may be processed as a timely application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Vincent's on August 5, 2002 IS GRANTED and Saint Vincent's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Paul Michael, Saint Vincent's, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-307A1.txt
  • to the late submission of FCC Form 470 is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver of our rules. The Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by St. Boniface School on January 15, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Marylou Pawlowski, St. Boniface School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 15, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-308A1.txt
  • of the language on the face of SMU Invoice No. 1 led SLD to the erroneous assumption that Shawano-Gresham had submitted an invoice for electrical utility charges. The new information offered on appeal, in SMU Invoice No. 2, provided SLD the opportunity to correct this assumption. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Shawano-Gresham School District, Shawano, Wisconsin, on October 3, 2002, IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-309A1.txt
  • eviscerate the benefits of having a filing window at all. In light of this, we do not believe that the denial of South Dakota's application creates the special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs on January 21, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tammy Bauck, South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-310A1.pdf
  • be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, we have consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Applicants must comply with program rules, including the application deadline, in order to be eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Waterville-Elysian-Morristown Public School on November 14, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joel Whitehurst, Waterville-Elysian-Morristown Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 14, 2002 (Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3193A1.txt
  • filing the corrected version shortly after being apprised of any mistake. Moreover, the deadline involved a first-time information request. The Petitioners sought discounts only for telecommunications services, and the Commission has authority to waive the deadline with respect to requests that involve only telecommunications services. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 , and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by the Chesterfield County Public Schools, Chesterfield, Virginia, on July 23, 2003; Georgia Technology Authority, Atlanta, Georgia, on December 16, 2002; Columbus School District, Columbus, Wisconsin, on January 30, 2003; and School District of Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, on September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3194A1.txt
  • Services supports our determination in the Whiteville Order that the underlying contract expired in December 2000. Because Petitioners failed to submit an FCC Form 470 for the services rendered after December 2000, in contravention of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements, we must deny their Petitions for Reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed on November 27, 2002 by Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina; on November 29, 2002 by Henderson, Baxter, Taylor & Gatchel, P.A. on behalf of Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina; and on November 29, 2002 by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-344A1.txt
  • responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. Merely stating that a letter or notice was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on July 31, 2003, by Education Legislative Service, Inc., El Cajon, California and Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, California, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-345A1.txt
  • that SLD must review and process each year, it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Our Lady of Victory Academy, Dobbs Ferry, New York on February 20, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joanne Kouzan, Our Lady of Victory Academy, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3560A1.txt
  • Company (Administrator). For a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Petitioners filed appeals after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny their Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on August 30, 2004 by Approach Learning and Assessment Centers, Santa Ana, California; April 8, 2004 by Fremont County Library System, Lander, Wyoming; July 19, 2004 by South Baltimore Learning Center, Baltimore, Maryland; and June 22, 2004 by Yeshivath Vinitz D'Khal Torah Chaim,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3561A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance date of the SLD decision. Here, the Petitioners filed their appeals to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on March 17, 2004 by Bayshore School District, Daly City, California; May 18, 2004 by Clarkdale-Jerome School, Clarkdale, Arizona; and May 26, 2004 by Mandaree Public School District 36, Mandaree, North Dakota ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3562A1.txt
  • was rendered. Appeals seeking review of decisions by SLD issued before August 13, 2001 must be filed with SLD within 30 days of the issuance of the decision. Coarsegold's appeal was filed June 5, 2000, in contravention of this rule. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Coarsegold Union School District, Coarsegold, California on June 19, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunication Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jon Corippo, Coarsegold Union School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3563A1.txt
  • For a review of a decision by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Alvarado filed its appeal after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on September 3, 2004 by Alvarado Independent School, Alvarado, Texas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kyle Berger, Alvarado Independent School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 3, 2004 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3564A1.txt
  • detrimental impact on a request does not create special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed July 6, 2004, by Grace Lutheran Day School, Queens Village, New York; August 30, 2004, by Messenger Public Library of North Aurora, North Aurora, Illinois; July 2, 2004, by Mosaica Education, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; June 17, 2004, by Pike County Board of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3565A1.txt
  • SLD issued before August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Moscow filed its appeal on May 17, 1999, after the 30-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requestfor Review filed by Moscow Unified School District, Satanta, Kansas on May 17, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Larry Philippi, Moscow Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 1999
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3566A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Baraga's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Baraga may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 24, 2004, by Baraga Area Schools, Baraga, Michigan IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lynn Ketola, Baraga Area Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3567A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Decatur's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Decatur may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 21, 2004, by Decatur Public Schools, Decatur, Arkansas IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Melissa Erks, Decatur Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 21,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3568A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Guamani School's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Guamani School may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 23, 2004, by Guamani School, Guayama, Puerto Rico IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Eduardo Delgado, Guamani School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 23, 2004
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-367A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Blackstone filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 8, 2003, by Nottoway County Library, on behalf of Blackstone Public Library, Crewe, Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Pierce, Blackstone Public Library, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3686A1.txt
  • years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Because Aberdeen did not list its request as one for Internet access on its FCC Forms 470 and 471 consistently, it failed to satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. Consequently, we must deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aberdeen School District No. 5, on July 10, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael R. Williams, Aberdeen School District No. 5, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-368A1.txt
  • Review filed by the Milwaukee Public Schools (Milwaukee PS), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, seeking review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding. On January 12, 2004, Milwaukee PS requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Milwaukee Public Schools, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on December 16, 2003 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Davis, Milwaukee Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-369A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Monroe Township's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Monroe Township may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 15, 2003, by Monroe Township Board of Education, Williamstown, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from John Armano, Monroe Township Board of Education, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-370A1.txt
  • application filed by Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois. Specifically, Systems Concepts seeks waiver of the Commission's rules for FRN 712607. Upon review of the record, however, we find that Chicago Public Schools cancelled FRN 712607. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Systems Concepts' Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Systems Concepts, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, on October 18, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Cynthia Nielsen-Morgan, Systems Concepts, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-371A1.txt
  • World requests that the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 630532. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved Terra World's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 630532. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Terra World's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed May 30, 2003, by Terra World, Inc., Independence, Kansas, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Mike Hughey, Terra World, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2003
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-372A1.txt
  • has cited the wrong Form 470 in an FRN but did have a Form 470 that supports the FRN and cites that correct Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. We therefore reverse and remand Prattsburgh's application for further consideration in light of Form 470 USCN 653700000151778. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 12, 2000, by Erie 1 BOCES Western New York Regional Information Center filed on behalf of Prattsburgh Central School District, is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3894A1.txt
  • Commission's competitive bidding rules by signing the FCC Form 471 or service provider agreement before the allowable contract date. The Bureau has also concluded that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information on their FCC Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center Area School District, on April 4, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Scott A. Antoline, Center Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 4, 2003
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3895A1.txt
  • only one provider in Raymond-Knowles's service area does not relieve Raymond-Knowles of the responsibility to comply with program rules. The Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Therefore, we deny the Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Raymond-Knowles Elementary School, on July 23, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Linda Lamont, Raymond-Knowles Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 23, 2002 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3896A1.txt
  • services in Funding Years 1999, 2000, and 2001, in violation of the Commission's rules. Terrebonne states that it was nevertheless awarded funds for this service since Funding Year 1999. We therefore direct SLD to initiate commitment adjustment procedures in connection with the appropriate funding year service requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Terrebonne Parish School District, on August 6, 2002, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SLD pursue funding commitment adjustments in accordance with the terms of this Order and the established commitment adjustment procedures. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3897A1.txt
  • Commission's competitive bidding rules by signing the FCC Form 471 or service provider agreement before the allowable contract date. The Bureau has also concluded that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information on their FCC Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ticonderoga Central School District, Ticonderoga, New York, on April 9, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from William Dodd, Ticonderoga Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3898A1.txt
  • as possible in order to deal with any problems that may arise. In this case, we find that SLD should have notified Totowa of the deficiency in the Form 470 in time for Totowa to submit an in-window Form 471 that complied with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Totowa Borough Public Schools, on March 28, 2002, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3899A1.txt
  • IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.106(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.106(a)(1), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Thomas Communications & Technology, on behalf of Paramus School District, on October 15, 2003, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Thomas Communications & Technology, on behalf of Paramus School District, on August 25, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau (Paramus Order). See Paramus Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 19515, para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4007A1.txt
  • inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. Each of the petitioners in the Requests for Review violated one or more of the above-cited competitive bidding requirements. In keeping with our prior decisions, we deny the Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Adel-Desoto-Minburn Community School, Adel, Iowa, on November 15, 2002; Baltimore County Public Schools, Towson, Maryland, on August 30, 2002; Derby Public Schools, Derby, Connecticut, on December 16, 2002; Madison School District 321, Rexburg, Indiana, on November 21, 2002, are DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-406A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Heritage's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Heritage may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 5, 2004, by Heritage Public Library, McDonald, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Connie Bongiorni, Heritage Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 5,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-407A1.txt
  • assertion, Jackson PS attaches a copy of the UPS tracking information. Based on the underlying record, we conclude that Jackson PS's application was postmarked by the filing window deadline. We therefore grant Jackson PS's Request for Review and remand Jackson PS's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jackson Public School District, Jackson, Mississippi on August 4, 2003 IS GRANTED, and Jackson PS's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-408A1.txt
  • thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on September 29, 2003, by Maricopa County School Superintendent's Office, Phoenix, Arizona, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-428A1.txt
  • or after August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Beth Jacob filed its appeal on December 26, 2002, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 26, 2002, by Beth Jacob High School, Brooklyn, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Yitzchok Kaplan, Beth Jacob High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-429A1.txt
  • of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. As we have consistently held in the past, applicants are responsible for submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 21, 2003, by Sunnyside School District, Sunnyside, Washington, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-432A1.txt
  • that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Coleman's Request for Waiver is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Coleman Community Schools on January 23, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones, Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Allen Spalding, Coleman Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 23, 2003 (Waiver Request).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-433A1.txt
  • be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. Further, the Commission has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Applicants must comply with program rules, including the application deadline, in order to be eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Winnebago Public Schools, Winnebago, Nebraska, on February 23, 2002 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Richard B. Peterson, Meritide, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 23, 2002 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-460A1.txt
  • of the first funding year following the effective date of the statute. Because Aleutians East was receiving discounts on Internet access, and was therefore subject to the October 28, 2001 deadline imposed by the CIPA statute, we are without authority to waive that deadline in this case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aleutians East Borough School District on February 12, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wesley L. Knapp, Ph.D, Aleutians East Borough School District, to Schools and Libraries Division,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-461A1.txt
  • Form 470 RNL; or (2) checked the website to make certain that its Form 470 had been posted. The Bureau has consistently held that it is the applicant who has responsibility ultimately for the timely submission of the application. Fredonia's Request for Waiver is therefore denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Fredonia-Moccasin Unified School District No. 6 on December 5, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steven L. Winward, Fredonia-Moccasin Unified School District No. 6, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-462A1.txt
  • of our rules. We therefore deny Tallulah Falls' waiver request. Unified Niobrara-Lynch Schools Niobrara-Lynch stated that it missed the deadline because of staffing problems. Staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with our rules and procedures. Accordingly, Niobrara-Lynch's waiver request is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Freehold Regional High School District, Englishtown, New Jersey, on September 12, 2002; Giltner Public Schools, Giltner, Nebraska, on July 10, 2002; Gold Oak Union Elementary School, Placerville, California, on March 11, 2002; Pine Castle Christian Academy, Orlando, Florida, on August 9,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-463A1.txt
  • by filing the corrected version shortly after being apprised of the mistake. Moreover, the deadline involved a first-time information request. Stafford also sought discounts only for telecommunications services, and the Commission has authority to waive the deadline with respect to requests that involve only telecommunications services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Stafford Public Schools, Stafford Springs, Connecticut on November 5, 2002 IS GRANTED and REMANDED TO SLD to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jill Klum, Stafford
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-572A1.txt
  • timely submission of its application. As a result, neither employee illness nor misunderstanding relieves applicants of their responsibility to understand and comply with the program rules or procedures. Consistent with existing precedent as described above, the Telecommunications Access Policy Division denies the above-captioned Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests filed by Jackson Public School District, Jackson, Mississippi, on December 5, 2002; Stafford Public Schools, Stafford Springs, Connecticut, on October 23, 2002; Syosset Central School District, Syosset, New York, on November 14, 2002; Villa Park School District 45, Villa Park, Illinois, on December 19, 2002;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-589A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Albuquerque failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on Albuquerque misunderstanding of the program rules does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on August 7, 2003, by Albuquerque Public Schools, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-590A1.txt
  • the deadline be extended for Funding Request Number (FRN) 876693. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that the Schools and Libraries Division approved Anaheim City's request to extend the invoicing deadline for FRN 876693. Accordingly, Anaheim City's Request for Waiver id dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed November 11, 2002, by Anaheim City School District, Anaheim, California, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Barry Bettger, Anaheim City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-596A1.txt
  • for Review filed by the Heavener Public Schools, Heavener, Oklahoma, seeking review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding. On May 30, 2001, Heavener Public Schools requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Heavener Public Schools, Heavener, Oklahoma, on November 3, 1999 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lance Ford, Heavener Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 3,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-597A1.txt
  • August 13, 2001, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Jesse Jackson Academy filed its appeal on December 29, 2003, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jesse Jackson Academy, Houston, Texas on December 29, 2003, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jesse W. Jackson, Jesse Jackson Academy, Houston, Texas, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-598A1.txt
  • filed by the Ralls Independent School District (Ralls ISD), Ralls, Texas, seeking review of decisions by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding. On May 9, 2001, Ralls ISD requested that its Request for Review be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ralls Independent School District, Ralls, Texas, on February 11, 2000 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Holly Lee and Dagobert Azam, Ralls Independent School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-599A1.txt
  • review of decisions by SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, St. Bartholomew filed its appeal on October 7, 2002, after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Bartholomew Consolidated School, Cincinnati, Ohio on October 7, 2002 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Theresa Mangold, St. Batholomew Consolidated School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 7,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-600A1.txt
  • and waited the 28-day competitive bidding period, it carefully considered all bids before choosing to continue service under its existing contract. Because the record does not address or resolve this question, we remand Merrimac's application to SLD to consider this issue and for all necessary further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Middle Peninsula Juvenile Detention Commission, Merrimac Center, on December 6, 2002, IS GRANTED, and this application is REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-980A1.txt
  • to guard against the occurrence of errors and fraud. Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Donna Public Library, Donna, Texas, on October 18, 2002, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal regarding SLD application numbers 320003 and 324627, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-981A1.txt
  • and such deviation would better serve the public interest than strict adherence to the rule. We find no such special circumstances in this case. Given the thousands of applications SLD processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place the burden of meeting deadlines on the applicants. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 3, 2003, by Grant Joint Union High School District, McClellan, California, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-982A1.txt
  • Memphis, Tennessee, seeking reconsideration of decisions by the Telecommunications Access Policy Division and the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) to deny funding to Memphis CSD. On March 17, 2004, Memphis CSD requested that its Petition for Reconsideration be withdrawn. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Memphis City School District, Memphis, Tennessee, on December 2, 2003 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Petition for Reconsideration of the Request for Review of the Decision of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-983A1.txt
  • submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures. In this instance, Murchison ISD failed to comply with the deadline. This failure based on misunderstanding of the program rules does not constitute special circumstance to justify a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 21, 2003, by Murchison Independent School District, Murchison, Texas, and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-984A1.txt
  • detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the applicants here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Sacred Heart School, Danbury, Connecticut on May 28, 2003; GEMS Academy, Humble, Texas on June 16, 2003; Pawnee Independent School District, Pawnee, Texas on June 4, 2003; Adel Elementary Lake County School District #21, Adel, Oregon on May 8, 2003; Port
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-985A1.txt
  • appeals of SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Waterville's Request for Waiver to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Waterville may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on December 24, 2003, by Waterville Public Schools, Waterville, Maine IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from James Reny, Waterville Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated December 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-986A1.txt
  • it omitted certain information required under SLD's minimum processing standards. Specifically, Wood-Ridge did not provide the Funding Year in Block 1. Consistent with existing precedent, we conclude that Wood-Ridge's application was appropriately returned for failure to satisfy minimum processing standards. We therefore deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wood-Ridge Board of Education, Wood-Ridge, New Jersey on June 28, 2003 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael D. Leary, Wood-Ridge Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1062A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Carrizozo Municipal Schools, Carrizozo, New Mexico, on November 22, 2004; Florence Unified School District #1, Florence, Arizona, on May 14, 2004; Glen Carbon Centennial Library, Glen Carbon, Illinois, on August 26, 2004; Glenn County Office of Education, Willows, California, on November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1063A1.txt
  • detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Cold Spring has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Cold Spring School District 750, Cold Spring, Texas, on November 22, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Kurt Langer, Cold Spring School District 750, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1064A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Concord School District, Concord, New Hampshire, on April 16, 2003; Floyd County Board of Education, Prestonsburg, Kentucky, on August 26, 2003; Fordland R-III School District, Fordland, Missouri, on February 23, 2004; Hull Christian School, Hull, Iowa, on April 14, 2003; Mexicayotl
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1065A1.txt
  • procedures, including filing deadlines. Hence, staffing problems do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Corpus Christi has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Corpus Christi Church and School, New York, New York, on March 2, 2005, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Brother Larry Lavallee, Corpus Christi Church and School, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1066A1.txt
  • or service provider agreement before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to follow program rules. We therefore deny Custer County's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Custer County C-1 School District, Westcliffe, Colorado, on December 6, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Joy L. Butts, Custer County C-1 School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1068A1.txt
  • for Waiver of the FCC Form 471 filing window deadline, there will be no need for Greenport Public Schools to file FCC Form 486 for Funding Year 2002. Therefore, we dismiss the Request for Waiver of the filing deadline for the FCC Form 486 as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Greenport Public Schools, Greenport, New York, on October 29, 2003, IS DENIED in part and DISMISSED as moot in part. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Charles Kozora, Greenport Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1069A1.txt
  • services for Funding Year 2003 of the schools and libraries universal service support program. Upon review of the record, we find that SLD has approved Orleans Parish's request for an extension of the non-recurring services deadline. Accordingly, we dismiss Orleans Parish's Request for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Orleans Parish School District, New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 12, 2004, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau The Request for Waiver was referred to the Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1070A1.txt
  • a detrimental impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Owensboro has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Owensboro Public Schools, Owensboro, Kentucky, on June 11, 2003, IS DENIED and the request to waive the filing deadline for filing a FCC Form 471 application IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1071A1.txt
  • for why they should be excused from observing the appeals deadline when hundreds of other applicants were able to appeal on time. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine here that Petitioners have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Joint Petition for Waiver and Relief, filed by Pennsylvania Department of Education and South Dakota Department of Education, on January 24, 2005, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Joint Petition of Pennsylvania Department of Education
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1072A1.txt
  • Request for Review. It is well established law that the absence of an official record of an event is evidence of the non-occurrence of the event. Because we find that the Ponca City's Block 6 certification was not filed at all, we deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ponca City Public Schools, Ponca City, Oklahoma, on April 21, 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jerry Jantz, Ponca City Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1073A1.txt
  • were filed. On February 15, 2005, Saint Paul filed a Request to Withdraw its Request for Review for FCC Form 471 application number 431237. We grant Saint Paul's Request to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss Saint Paul's Request for Review for FCC Form 471 application number 431237. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to Withdraw filed by Saint Paul Public Schools, Saint Paul, Minnesota, on February 15, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1074A1.txt
  • is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures, including filing deadlines. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Worth School District has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Worth School District 127, Worth, Illinois, on February 24, 2005, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Miller, Worth School District 127, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1077A1.txt
  • contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to provide complete and accurate information on their applications and follow program rules. We therefore deny Butte's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Butte High School of the West Boyd Unified School District, Butte, Nebraska, on October 21, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from D. Russell Lechtenberg, Butte High School, West
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1078A1.txt
  • doubt that the existence of Florida College results in an improved educational experience for students in Jacksonville, Florida. However, the provision of discounted services for entities such as community colleges is beyond the scope of our statutory authority and would divert support from the program's intended beneficiaries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Florida Community College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, on December 6, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Dr. Steven Wallace, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1079A1.txt
  • January 19, 2000, and that it took steps to inform SLD that it was unable to complete its application on January 19, 2000 due to problems with SLD's Internet site. We therefore grant Gainesville's Request for Waiver and remand its application to SLD for further processing. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Gainesville Independent School District, Gainesville, Texas, on June 30, 2000, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1080A1.txt
  • inclement weather, or misunderstanding of the rules does not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Galloway Township has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Galloway Township Board of Education, Galloway Township, New Jersey, on June 7, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gil Chapman, Galloway Township Board of Education, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-108A1.txt
  • Because USAC did not consider which party was responsible for the statutory or rule violation at issue, we find it appropriate to remand the above-captioned Requests for Review of commitment adjustment decisions to USAC for further consideration consistent with the Commission's decision in the Schools Fourth Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Ameritech Advanced Data Services, Inc. - St. Lorenz Lutheran School, Frankenmuth, Michigan, on July 14, 2004; BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. - Orleans Parish School District, New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 10, 2004; DeltaNet, Inc. - Calvery Chapel Academy, Lawrence, Kansas, on December 15,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1121A1.txt
  • For review of decisions by SLD, requests to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Arlington School District filed its request after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Battenkill Valley Supervisory Union, on behalf of Arlington School District, Arlington, Vermont, dated February 03, 2005, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Michael Finch, Battenkill Valley Supervisory Union, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1122A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to provide accurate information on their applications and comply with program rules and procedures. We therefore deny Brunswick County's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Brunswick County Schools, Bolivia, North Carolina, on November 8, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Leonard Jenkins, Brunswick County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 8, 2004
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1123A1.txt
  • amounts that go beyond what they can substantiate, their funding requests will be reduced to the amount that is substantiated. Accordingly, we remand these Requests for Review and direct SLD to grant the commitment requests in accordance with this Order, unless SLD identifies other grounds for denial. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Greenbrier County School District, Cleveland, Ohio on December 22, 2003; Mason County School District, Cleveland, Ohio on March 18, 2004; Preston County School District, Cleveland, Ohio on March 18, 2004; and Raleigh County School District, Beckley, West Virginia on February 3, 2005,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1124A1.txt
  • staffing changes nor misunderstanding of the rules relieves applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Information Transport has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of the Commission's rules. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Information Transport Solutions, Inc., Wetumpka, Alabama, dated November 5, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Tomi J. Selby, Information Transport Solutions, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, dated November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1125A1.txt
  • with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on August 19, 2002, IS DENIED IN PART, AND GRANTED IN PART and REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1126A1.txt
  • advice provided by the employee, particularly when relief is contrary to a rule. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the ultimate responsibility of complying with all relevant rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sacred Heart School, Mount Holly, New Jersey, on February 5, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Ronald J. Maniglia, Sacred Heart School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1127A1.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require applicants to provide accurate information on their applications and comply with program rules and procedures. We therefore deny St. Margaret's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Margaret's School, Middle Village, New York, on October 28, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Donna Menna, St. Margaret's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 28,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1128A1.txt
  • SLD, appeals to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, School Administrative Unit #6 filed an appeal to the Commission after the 60-day period, in contravention of Commission rules. We therefore dismiss the Request for Review. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by School Administrative Unit #6, Claremont, New Hampshire, dated November 26, 2004, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Allen Damren, School Administrative Unit #6, to Federal Communications Commission, dated November 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1129A1.txt
  • or late applications, and have those applications considered timely, would be unfair to the applicants who diligently filed their complete applications in a timely fashion. Because we find that St. John's FCC Form 471 application was filed outside of the window, we deny its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John's School, Wahpeton, North Dakota on March 5, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Wilfred Sauer, St. John's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 5, 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-161A1.txt
  • a review of decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, Athens and Novacon filed appeals to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of Commission rules. We therefore deny their Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on November 12, 2004 by Athens Independent School District, Athens, Texas; and November 2, 2004 by Novacon, Rolling Meadows, Illinois ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Lawrence Hill, Athens Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-162A1.txt
  • than the California DoE, to verify that Mariposa had an approved technology plan was in error. Consequently, we conclude that SLD improperly denied Mariposa's funding request. We therefore grant Mariposa's Request for Review and remand Mariposa's application to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mariposa County Unified School District, Mariposa, California on October 31, 2001, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and Mariposa's application is REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1725A1.txt
  • Administrative Company (USAC), which suspended payments from USAC to Miami-Dade. On June 7, 2005, Miami-Dade filed a Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Compel and the Request for Review. We grant Miami-Dade's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss Miami-Dade's Motion to Compel and its Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Compel Service by Sprint-Florida, Inc., and the Appeal of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida from USAC Suspension Letter, filed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Florida, on June 7, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1726A1.txt
  • direct the Universal Service Administrative Company to release funds to Tennessee schools based on the Commission's July 2003 Tennessee Order. On June 6, 2005, Tennessee filed a Motion to Withdraw its Petition for Clarification. We grant Tennessee's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss Tennessee's Petition for Clarification. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by the Department of Education, State of Tennessee, on June 6, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1953A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1953A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1953A2.txt
  • THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY'S DECISIONS REGARDING SAFETY NET ADDITIVE SUPPORT PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED CC Docket No. 96-45 Comments Due: August 5, 2005 Reply Comments Due: August 22, 2005 On May 2, 2005, Darien Telephone Company, Inc., Logan Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company filed Requests for Review of an Administrator Decision, pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. The companies request that the Wireline Competition Bureau review decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) that reduced the companies' safety net additive support. Interested parties may file comments on or before August 5, 2005 and reply comments on or before August 22, 2005. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2176A1.txt
  • Order. We instruct SLD to provide Fayette with a detailed inquiry of the documents and information necessary for SLD to determine the eligibility of Fayette's request for funding. In remanding this matter to SLD, we make no findings as to the ultimate eligibility of the requested services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fayette County School District, Fayetteville, West Virginia, on October 7, 2003, IS GRANTED, to the extent described herein, and REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2177A1.txt
  • for the services at issue. The new information provided by NextiraOne resolves this ambiguity by clarifying that the services for FRN 606794 were installed in June 2003, after the FCC Form 486 adjusted service start date of April 23, 2003. Accordingly, we grant NextiraOne's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by NextiraOne, LLC, on behalf of Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66, Phoenix, Arizona, on April 8, 2005, IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2178A1.txt
  • When SLD determined that the Avista SPIN in SLD's database differed from the Avista SPIN on Spokane's FCC Form 486, SLD should have adjusted the information on Spokane's FCC Form 486 accordingly. We therefore grant the Request for Review and remand it to SLD for further processing. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Spokane Public Schools, Spokane, Washington, on March 20, 2003, is GRANTED and REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company, for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2320A1.txt
  • the Commission's Lifeline program for low-income consumers. These rule changes became effective on a prospective basis, beginning November 1, 1999. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, 202, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 202, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, 54.706, 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.106, 54.706, and 54.722, that BellSouth Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of the Commission's Fifth Circuit Remand Order IS GRANTED, IN PART, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393 (5th Cir.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2833A1.txt
  • impractical and unreasonable, as well as the Commission's and the Bureau's long-standing policy of ensuring that applicants for non-recurring services are not penalized for delays that are not within their control. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 U.S.C. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by the Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas, on November 8, 2004 is GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Funding Year 2003 deadline for installation of non-recurring services pursuant to FRN 1000282 is extended for the Houston Independent
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2834A1.txt
  • Internet connectivity, would not be possible for the Houston area schools at issue without the Phonoscope modulating equipment. Thus, we find that the fiber optic WAN provided by Phonoscope is ``lit'' and is therefore eligible for E-rate support. As a result, we grant Houston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas, on March 18, 2005, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-283A1.txt
  • the omission is not a special circumstance warranting a waiver. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for providing complete and accurate information and meeting all of the program deadlines. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Esko Public Schools, Esko, Minnesota, on November 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jim Schwartz & Richard Singpiel, Esko Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, postmarked
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-284A1.txt
  • with program rules and procedures. Hence, staffing changes does not relieve applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that ONEC has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 2, 2004, by ONEC, Manderson, South Dakota, IS DENIED and the request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-285A1.txt
  • approved or due to personnel changes do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to understand and comply with the program rules or procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed on March 8, 2004, by School Administrative Unit 41, Hollis, New Hampshire; on April 12, 2004, by River Trails School District 26, Mt. Prospect, Illinois; on May 4, 2004, by Hyde Leadership Public Charter School, Washington, DC; and on June 30, 2004,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-326A1.txt
  • amounts that go beyond what they can substantiate, their funding requests will be reduced to the amount that is substantiated. Accordingly, we remand these Requests for Review and direct SLD to grant the commitment requests in accordance with this order, unless SLD identifies other grounds for denial. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Berkeley County School District, Martinsburg, West Virginia, on February 23, 2004; Braxton County School District, Sutton, West Virginia, on August 7, 2003; Brooke County School District, Wellsburg, West Virginia, on January 12, 2004; Cambria Heights School District, Patton, Pennsylvania, on November 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3290A1.txt
  • rural, insular, and high-cost areas. Therefore, we conclude that deviation from the general rule under these special circumstances will serve the public interest. Accordingly, we find that waiving section 54.307(c) of the Commission's rules will serve the public interest by preserving and advancing universal service. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of FCC Rule Section 54.307 filed by FiberNet, LLC, on April 11, 2005, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau FiberNet, LLC, Petition for Waiver of FCC Rule Section 54.307(c)(4), CC Docket No. 96-45, filed Apr. 11, 2005 (FiberNet
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-430A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Atlanta Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia, on May 7, 2003; Kings Local School District, Kings Mills, Ohio, on March 31, 2003; Ross-Hill Academy, Detroit, Michigan, on July 9, 2003; St. Agatha School, Brooklyn, New York, on June 10, 2003; St. Philip School,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-431A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by El Dorado County Office of Education, Placerville, California, on March 12, 2003; GEMS Academy, Humble, Texas, on July 21, 2003; Lafayette School Corporation, Lafayette, Indiana, on January 20, 2002; and Sts. Leo-Seton Catholic School, Lafayette, Louisiana, on August 26, 2003, respectively,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-432A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by E-Rate Central, Seaford, New York, on November 18, 2003; Gerrish-Higgins School District, Roscommon, Michigan, on July 10, 2003; Haverhill Public Schools, Haverhill, Massachusetts, on August 7, 2003; Ringwood School District, Ringwood, New Jersey, on July 15, 2003; School District of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-462A1.txt
  • For review of decisions by SLD, requests to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, the Petitioner filed its request after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review by Tiospa Zina Tribal School, Agency Village, South Dakota, filed December 7, 2004, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Greg S. Paulson, Tiospa Zina Tribal School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-465A1.txt
  • Company (Administrator). For review of decisions by SLD, requests to the Commission must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the SLD decision date. Here, the Applicants filed their requests after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We therefore dismiss their requests. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review by the Board of Education - Unified School District 402, Augusta, Kansas, on July 16, 2003; Brookline Elementary School, Brookline, Vermont, on July 15, 2003; Townshend Elementary School, Townshend, Vermont, on July 21, 2003; and Woodbridge Board of Education, Woodbridge, Connecticut, August 4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-466A1.txt
  • decisions by SLD, appeals to SLD must be filed within 60 days of the issuance date of the SLD decision. Here, Killdeer filed its appeal to SLD after the 60-day period, in contravention of our rules. We affirm SLD's decision and therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Killdeer Public School District No. 16, Killdeer, North Dakota, on December 15, 2004, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Gary Wilz, Killdeer Public School District No. 16, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-467A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Northwest Passage School has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Northwest Passage School, Webster, Wisconsin, on July 5, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Steve Ammend, Northwest Passage School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-481A1.txt
  • Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Beaver Dam's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision in this matter, Beaver Dam may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Beaver Dam Community Hospital, Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, on January 21, 2005, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Narda M. Jones Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sandra Tiedt, Beaver Dam Community Hospital, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-496A1.txt
  • SLD's decisions to the Administrator and the Commission. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Bristow School's Request for Review to the Commission. Once the Administrator has issued its decision, Bristow Schools may then appeal to the Commission, if it believes such an appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on December 20, 2004, by Bristow Public Schools, Bristow, Oklahoma IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Jeanene Barnett, Bristow Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 20,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-497A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver filed by Aubrey Independent School District, Aubrey, Texas, on June 3, 2004; Barrow County Schools, Winder, Georgia, on August 16, 2004; Bicentennial Union High School District #76, Salome, Arizona, on May 10, 2004; Campbell County Public Library, Cold Spring, Kentucky, on November 29,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-498A1.txt
  • consider which party was responsible for the statutory or rule violation at issue, we find it appropriate to remand the above-captioned Requests for Review of commitment adjustment decisions to USAC for further consideration consistent with the Commission's decision in the Schools and Libraries Fourth Report and Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by ATEK Construction, Inc. - Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, on July 12, 2004; Riverside County Office of Education, Riverside, California, on October 1, 2004; SBC-Illinois and Ameritech Advanced Data Services, Inc. - Harvey Public School District, Harvey, Illinois, on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-54A1.txt
  • substantiate, their funding requests will be reduced to the amount that is substantiated. Accordingly, we remand this case and direct SLD to grant the commitment request for FRN 924840 in the amount of $232.90 monthly in accordance with this order, unless SLD identifies other grounds for denial. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Iroquois West School District 10, Gilman, Illinois IS GRANTED to the extent described herein and REMANDED to SLD for further action consistent with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-630A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Camden Catholic High School, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on March 17, 2003; Carlisle Area School District, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on April 8, 2003; and Yeshivat Ateret Torah, Brooklyn, New York, on August 7, 2003, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-696A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by American Falls School District No. 1381, American Falls, Idaho, on June 30, 2003; Berlin-Milan Local Schools, Milan, Ohio, on May 27, 2003; and Humble Independent School District, Humble, Texas, on June 18, 2003, respectively, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-697A1.txt
  • impact on an applicant does not create special circumstances or suggest particular facts that warrant a waiver of the Commission's rules. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that the Petitioners here have not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Hereford Independent School District, Hereford, Texas, on May 5, 2003; John A. Coleman Catholic High School, Hurley, New York, on June 4, 2003; Pima Vocational High School, Tucson, Arizona, on April 16, 2003; and Rock Falls Elementary School District 13, Rock
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-698A1.txt
  • Services supports our determination in the Whiteville Order that the underlying contract expired in December 2000. Because Petitioners failed to submit an FCC Form 470 for the services rendered after December 2000, in contravention of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements, we must deny their Petitions for Reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina, on November 27, 2002, Henderson, Baxter, Taylor & Gatchel, P.A. on behalf of Craven County Public School System, New Bern, North Carolina, on November 29, 2002, and Valentine, Adams & Lamar, L.L.P. on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-90A1.txt
  • Employee misunderstandings about program rules do not relieve applicants of their responsibility to understand and comply with the program rules or procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we find that Community Consolidated has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on June 2, 2004, by Community Consolidated School District 168, Sauk Village, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from George Kunkel, Community Consolidated School District 168, to Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-91A1.txt
  • procedures. Hence, neither staffing changes nor misunderstanding of the rules relieves applicants of their responsibility to comply with the Commission's rules and procedures. In keeping with our prior decisions, we determine that Harmony has not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary for a waiver of our rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 22, 2004, by Harmony Science Academy, Houston, Texas IS DISMISSED and request to waive the 60-day time limit in which to file an appeal IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-93A1.txt
  • decision was rendered. Appeals seeking review of decisions by SLD issued before August 13, 2001 must have been filed with SLD within 30 days of the decision. White Hall's appeal was filed June 23, 2000, in contravention of this rule. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by White Hall School District No. 27, White Hall, Arkansas on July 10, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Vickie S. Robinson Deputy Chief, Telecommunication Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Danny Young, White Hall School District No. 27, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1106A1.txt
  • mechanism and to determine on a case-by-case basis whether waste, fraud, or abuse of program funds occurred and whether recovery is warranted. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the South Carolina Division of the Chief Information Officer Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator and/or in the Alternative, Petition for Waiver IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1265A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Richmond County School District ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1266A1.txt
  • had come through and no additional, unbudgeted priority expenditures had arisen. If USAC finds that Anson County would have been able to finance that entire amount, and if its application is otherwise consistent with program rules, then USAC should grant the two funding requests at issue here. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Anson County School District on March 28, 2006 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Maxter E. Allen, Anson County School District, to Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1287A1.txt
  • to USAC. We direct USAC to give Hickory City 15 days to submit the relevant data so that USAC can complete its selective review. If USAC finds that the five Hickory City applications at issue here were filed consistent with E-rate program rules, it should grant them. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hickory City School District on August 17, 2004 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1462A1.txt
  • its selective review of Jennings County. We expect Jennings County to provide USAC, in a timely manner, with the information that USAC may request. If USAC finds that the three Jennings County applications at issue here were filed consistent with E-rate program rules, it should grant them. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jennings County Schools on March 23, 2006 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1463A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henkels & McCoy, Inc., on October 3, 2005, IS GRANTED AND REMANDED to USAC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), and pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1509A1.txt
  • that the procurement process at issue did not violate our competitive bidding requirements. We therefore grant Wyoming's Requests for Review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Wyoming Department of Education on December 13, 2005, and December 15, 2005 are GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1574A1.txt
  • with the terms of this Order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the requested services. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that the Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.504(b) filed by Utica City School District, Utica, New York IS GRANTED and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1575A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority under 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that Hickory Public Schools District Request for Review IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1632A1.txt
  • find that in this case the late filing did not impair the administration of the USF. Furthermore, GVNW has taken steps to ensure that it will not file late in the future. As such, we grant the Partnerships' petition for waiver of section 54.307(c). . ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of Section 54.307 of the Commission's Rules filed by Northwest Dakota Cellular of North Dakota Limited Partnership; North Central RSA 2 of North Dakota Limited Partnership; North Dakota RSA No. 3 Limited Partnership; Badlands Cellular of North Dakota Limited Partnership; North Dakota 5 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1633A1.txt
  • with Commission rules, USAC should have deemed the certifications of Buggs Island and Pembroke filed on Monday, October 3, 2005, as timely filed. We direct USAC to implement the conclusions in this Order by disbursing first quarter 2005 funds to Buggs Island and Pembroke. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Petition for Waiver of Deadline in 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.313, 54.314 filed by Buggs Island Telephone Cooperative on October 18, 2005, and the Petition for Waiver of Section 54.314(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules filed by Pembroke Telephone Cooperative on October 31, 2005, ARE GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1642A1.txt
  • abuse of program funds occurred and whether 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), this Order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that section 54.720(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(b), is WAIVED with regard to Requests
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1643A1.txt
  • release of this Order and issue an award or denial based on a complete review and analysis. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Providence Public School District IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. 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 pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1653A1.txt
  • provide the information within 15 calendar days of receiving notice in writing from USAC that additional information is required. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by School Administrative District 67 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1655A1.txt
  • we find that good cause exists to grant Gayville-Volin's appeal and remand to USAC for further processing consistent with our decision. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gayville-Volin School District 63-1, Gayville, South Dakota IS GRANTED and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1656A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Douglas-Omaha Technology Commission, Omaha, Nebraska, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1657A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority under 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that Zapata County Independent School District, Zapata, Texas, Request for Review IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1770A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Owensboro Public Schools, Owensboro, Kentucky, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1806A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Scott County School System, Huntsville, Tennessee, IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1871A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1907A1.txt
  • 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. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that the Requests for Review as listed in Appendices A, B, C, and D of this Order ARE GRANTED and ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2108A1.txt
  • of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Berrien County Intermediate School District Appeal IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2235A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Benavides Independent School District, Benavides, Texas IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 the authority delegated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2236A1.txt
  • error. We continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Minnesota River Valley Education District, Montevideo, Minnesota, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2269A1.txt
  • direct USAC to reinstate the funding commitment no later than 60 days from the release of this Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Paterson School District, Paterson, New Jersey IS GRANTED and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2306A1.txt
  • provide the information within 15 calendar days of receiving notice in writing from USAC that additional information is required. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Abington School District IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2355A1.txt
  • Thumb Cellular had notice of a deadline that was different than the one established by the Commission's rules, which provide specific guidance on calculating deadlines. We direct USAC to implement the conclusions in this Order by disbursing third quarter 2003 ICLS funds to Thumb Cellular. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Appeal of USAC's Denial of Funding filed by Thumb Cellular Limited Partnership on June 2, 2004 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Appeal of the Decision of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-244A1.txt
  • a waiver to Glendale and remand its application to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review and/or Waiver filed by Glendale Unified School District, Glendale, California, IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2459A1.txt
  • interest and the goals of section 254(h) of the Communications Act are best served by requiring USAC to reconsider Quinter's application, including the revised diagram filed with Quinter's Second USAC Appeal, and to work with Quinter to determine if indeed its request should be considered eligible telecommunications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Quinter Public Schools Unified School District No. 293, Quinter, Kansas, on October 3, 2005, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2460A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 C.F.R. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Coahoma County School District, Clarksdale, Mississippi, IS GRANTED, and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2462A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, waiver of section 54.720(b) IS GRANTED to Friendship House. 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Friendship House, Scranton, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-246A1.txt
  • Education's (ACBE) Funding Year 2003 and 2004 applications for discounted services. On October 20, 2005, RelComm filed a Request to Withdraw its Requests for Review of ACBE's Funding Year 2003 and 2004 applications. We grant RelComm's Request to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismiss RelComm's Requests for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request to Withdraw filed RelComm, Inc., West Berlin, New Jersey, on October 20, 2005, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2500A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dallas Independent School District IS GRANTED, and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2584A1.txt
  • Accordingly, we find that waiving section 54.904(d) of the Commission's rules will serve the public interest by preserving and advancing universal service. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 214, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of the Deadline in 47 C.F.R. § 54.904(d) filed by North River Telephone Cooperative on November 17, 2005, IS GRANTED, as described herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau North River Telephone Cooperative Petition for Waiver of the Deadline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-287A1.txt
  • at issue followed USAC and the Commission's competitive bidding rules and regulations, as well as applicable state laws, as required by program rules, we conclude that Petitioners were in compliance with section 54.504(a) of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we grant Petitioners' Requests for Review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Petitioners on August 23, 2004, August 17, 2004, and July 27, 2004, ARE GRANTED, and the applications are REMANDED to SLD for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Dana R. Shaffer Deputy Chief Wireline Competition Bureau The 12 school
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-484A1.txt
  • the opportunity to receive support under the schools and libraries support mechanism, provided that all other E-rate application requirements are satisfied. We therefore grant a waiver to the State of Wyoming and remand the applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyoming, on December 20, 2002 and February 12, 2003, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-152 and 254,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-485A1.txt
  • highest number of points in the bid evaluation, but it also represented the lowest cost of the proposals submitted. These factors support the conclusion that the procurement process at issue did not violate our competitive bidding requirements. We therefore grant Wyoming's Request for Review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wyoming Department of Education on April 18, 2005 is GRANTED and remanded to USAC for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Clementina Jimenez, Wyoming Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-486A1.txt
  • grant Pasadena's Requests for Review and remand its applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Pasadena Unified School District, Pasadena, California, ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-487A1.txt
  • public interest to penalize Greenfield for its employee's sudden departure to fulfill his military obligations. We therefore grant the Waiver Request and remand the underlying applications to the Administrator. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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, 54.722(a) and pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Greenfield Public School District, Shutesbury, Massachusetts, on October 12, 2005, IS GRANTED, and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to the Administrator for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-785A1.txt
  • reserve the right to conduct audits and investigations to determine compliance with the program rules and requirements. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1180A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507 filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1182A1.txt
  • 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 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 Tri-Rivers Education Computer Association's Request for Review IS GRANTED, as described herein. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1184A1.txt
  • Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company has approved Kress's request. Accordingly, we dismiss Kress's Request for Review as moot. 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 3, 2004, by Kress Independent School District, Kress, Texas, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Renée R. Crittendon Acting Deputy Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Leah Zeigler, Kress Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed Feb. 3, 2004 (Request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1236A1.txt
  • of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Long Beach Unified School District on May 25, 2004; Smoky Hill Education Service Center on August 25, 2004; and Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico, on behalf of Advance Bilingual School, on February 10, 2005, are GRANTED and REMANDED to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1238A1.txt
  • therefore subject to the October 28, 2001 deadline imposed by the CIPA statute, we are thus without authority to waive that deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeals filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.txt
  • and the Instructions. We therefore conclude that Petitioners' Forms 499-A for 2001 should be rejected. V. ORDERING CLAUSEs ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j) and 254 and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petitions for Review filed by American Cyber Corp., Coleman Enterprises, Inc., Inmark, Inc., d/b/a Preferred Billing, Lotel, Inc., d/b/a Coordinated Billing, Protel Advantage, Inc. ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1270A1.txt
  • the foregoing reasons, we deny the Request for Review and remand the relevant applications to USAC to continue the commitment adjustment recovery actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Send Technologies, L.L.C., on January 19, 2004 and March 22, 2004 ARE DENIED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1- 4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1272A1.txt
  • receipt and must await reimbursement from USAC have an alternative method by which to pay the non-discounted portion. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Waiver filed by AT&T Corp. IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.txt
  • River during 2001 for the universal service obligations resulting from Big River's end-user telecommunications revenues. V. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j) and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Big River Telephone Company, LLC IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1332A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Calhoun School, New York, New York, on November 23, 2004; North American Family Institute, Danvers, Massachusetts, on August 24, 2004; North Sacramento School District, Sacramento, California, on December 7, 2005; Harrisonburg City School Board, on June 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1573A1.txt
  • the E-rate, rural health care, and low-income programs established by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's rules. 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request filed November 1, 2005, by the State of Louisiana, Governor's Office, the Request filed November 1, 2005, by the Texas Education Agency, and the Request filed April 10, 2006, by the Louisiana Public Service Commission ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2111A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2694A1.txt
  • award or denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release of this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hickory Public Schools, Hickory, North Carolina, on June 9, 2006 IS GRANTED, and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2695A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Long Beach Unified School District on May 27, 2004, is GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2922A1.txt
  • revenues earned from its telecommunications offerings and reasonable costs, including interest and administrative costs caused by Radiant's overdue contributions. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the appeal filed by Radiant Telecom, Inc., is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Radiant Telecom, Inc. is to file FCC Form 499-A for years 2002 to the present with the Universal Service Administrative Company in accordance with the terms of this Order, and the Universal Service Administrative
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.txt
  • under Section 253 of the Communications Act 06/30/09 3060-0862 Handling Confidential Information 06/30/08 3060-0863 Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) 04/30/09 3060-0865 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Universal Licensing System Recordkeeping and Third-Party Disclosure Requirements 07/31/10 3060-0874 FCC 475B, FCC 2000 Series 09/30/10 3060-0876 Sec. 54.703 and Secs. 54.719, 54.720, 54.721, 54.722, 54.723, 54.724 and 54.725 09/30/09 3060-0881 Sec. 95.861 09/30/08 3060-0882 Sec. 95.833 01/31/09 3060-0888 Secs. 76.7, 76.9, 76.61, 76.914, 76.1003, 76.1302, and 76.1513 05/31/08 3060-0894 Secs. 54.313 and 54.316 and Certification Letter Accounting for Receipt of Federal Support and Rate Comparability Review and Certification 09/30/10 3060-0895 FCC 502 05/31/10 3060-0896 Broadcast Auction Form Exhibits 12/31/08 3060-0900 Compatibility of Wireless Services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4471A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4549A1.txt
  • related to the Oblio Petition. Oblio further requests that the Oblio Petition be withdrawn with prejudice. We therefore grant Oblio's request. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Oblio Petition IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jeremy D. Marcus Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Petition of Oblio Telecom, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling that AT&T's Refusal to Honor Oblio Telecom, Inc.'s Proof of Exemption From Pass-Through USF Charges and Request for Refund
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-459A1.txt
  • We find that Hopi's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER, effective as of June 1, 2006, for portions of its licensed service area on the Hopi and Navajo Nation Reservations in Arizona, to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the request for refund of late filing fees for filers listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5021A1.txt
  • Form 471. On February 12, 2007, Troup County filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal after learning that it received funding for the same products and services in Funding Year 2005. We grant Troup County's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and, accordingly, dismiss Troup County's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Troup County School System, LaGrange, Georgia, on February 12, 2007, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1418A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Arkansas requests for review and waiver filed on behalf of itself and the applicants as listed in Appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.txt
  • of the 45-day revision window is warranted in this instance. We therefore reverse USAC's decision to reject Aventure's January 15, 2008, FCC Form 499-Q filing, and direct USAC to treat it as timely for purposes of adjusting Aventure's USF contribution obligations on a going-forward basis. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Aventure Communications Technology, LLC on March 6, 2008, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion for Waiver of Public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1890A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Savannah request for review IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this order. 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. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1898A1.txt
  • and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order and the Civil Settlement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Universal Service Administrative Company SHALL COMPLETE its review of the remanded application and ISSUE an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.txt
  • therefore, that AMTS providers are not exempt from USF contribution obligations. For the foregoing reasons, we deny the request for review. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722, that the request for review filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC on behalf of Waterway Communication System, LLC and Mobex Network Services, LLC IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2133A1.txt
  • and arguments presented generally is required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Gary Seigel, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Centennial Communications Corp., Request Pursuant to Section 54.722(a) of the Commission's Rules for Review of Universal Service Administrative Company Decision on High Cost Support Mechanism Beneficiary Appeal, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Sept. 8, 2008) (Centennial Petition); 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). See Centennial Petition at 1. Id. See Centennial Petition at 17; 47 C.F.R. § 54.307. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for refund of late filing fees for filers listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED. 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 pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2362A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Delano Joint Union High School District, Delano, California on December 28, 2006 and the Request for Review filed by Cityroots, Inc., Bakersfield, California on March 20, 2007 ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2363A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Grand Rapids Public Schools on June 8, 2007, IS GRANTED. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2365A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Harvey Public Library District IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2366A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Hillsboro Independent School District IS GRANTED, as described herein. 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 pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2367A1.txt
  • 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. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network on December 13, 2004, IS GRANTED and Aguadilla's application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2368A1.txt
  • will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Liberal Unified School District 480, Liberal, Kansas, on May 5, 2004, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2370A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Haven Free Public Library, New Haven Connecticut, on January 31, 2005 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2371A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Radford City Schools IS GRANTED, as described herein. 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2372A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Tekoa Academy of Accelerated Studies, Port Arthur, Texas, on March 5, 2004, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2373A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that Trenton City School District's Request for Review IS GRANTED and its application REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2374A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that United Talmudical Academy's Request for Review IS GRANTED and its application REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2375A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that West Branch-Rose City Area School's Request for Review IS GRANTED and its application REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2376A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507(c) filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2377A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Adams County Public Library, West Union, Ohio; Albemarle County Public Schools, Charlottesville, Virginia; Austin School District 492, Austin, Minnesota; Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Syracuse, New York; Roddenberry Memorial Library, Cairo, Georgia; Stokes County School District, Danbury, North Carolina; and The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2378A1.txt
  • and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2379A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and or Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507 filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2380A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Approach Learning and Assessment Centers on August 13, 2007, Brevard County School District on February 15, 2007, Charleston County School District on October 29, 2007, Hoboken School District on September 25, 2006, Division of Juvenile Justice California Education Authority on October 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2381A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 underlying applications associated with the appeals listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. 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.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and Requests for Waiver filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2383A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2384A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) the Requests for Review as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2385A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2386A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Chester Upland School District, Lake Grove - Durham School, Lower Yukon School District, and Santa Ana Unified School District ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consisted with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Colegio Nuestra Senora del Carmen on June 8, 2005, Long Branch Free Public Library on April 23, 2007, The Mill School on April 26, 2005, Pinon Unified School District on November 18, 2005, Thornton Township High School District 205 on January 13, 2006,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2388A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, on August 25, 2006, and Consorcio de Escuelas y Bibliotecas de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, on August 25, 2006, and October 2, 2006, respectively, ARE GRANTED and the underlying
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2389A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Achieve Telecom Network of MA, LLC and E-Rate Elite Services, Inc. ARE GRANTED to the extent described herein, and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2695A1.txt
  • important filing deadlines are not met, as a means to ensure that FCC Forms 499-Q are timely filed. Ordering Clauses 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for waiver of the FCC Form 499-Q revision deadline for filers listed in the Appendix ARE DISMISSED as moot. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-319A1.txt
  • waiver of section 54.504 of our rules and remand Franklin-McKinley's appeal to USAC for further processing consistent with our decision. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Franklin-McKinley School District IS GRANTED. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-449A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by SEND Technologies, L.L.C., on November 20, 2006 and April 9, 2007 ARE GRANTED as they relate to Morehouse Parish School District, Richland Parish School District, Webster Parish School District, Franklin Academy, Caldwell Parish School District, Lincoln Parish School District, Madison Parish School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-942A1.txt
  • 499-Q. USAC has advised the Commission, however, that since 360networks' appeal was filed, USAC has ``revised 360networks' second quarter 2004 billings and has reversed all applicable late payment fees.'' Based on this information, we find that 360networks' concerns have been addressed and the appeal is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by 360networks (USA) Inc. on May 3, 2005, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1251A1.txt
  • find, based on the revised filing, that Cook would have qualified for the de minimis exception to contribution obligations, USAC is directed to cancel all associated debt attributed to Cook due to its original 1997 FCC Form 457 filing, including late fees, penalties, and interest. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Cook Telecom, Inc. on February 6, 2006, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.txt
  • treatment of disbursements during the pending review process. Need: In implementing statutory requirements for the Universal Service support mechanism, these rules provide the framework and requirements for the review of decisions issued by the Administrator. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 254. Section Number and Title: 54.719 Parties permitted to seek review of Administrator decisions. 54.720 Filing deadlines. 54.721 General filing requirements. 54.722 Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission. 54.723 Standard of review. 54.724 Time periods for Commission approval of Administrator decisions. 54.725 Universal service disbursements during pendency of a request for review and Administrator decision. PART 61-TARIFFS SUBPART E-GENERAL RULES FOR DOMINANT CARRIERS Brief Description: The Part 61 rules are designed to implement the provisions of sections 201, 202,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1308A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of: Federal-State Joint Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service Centennial Michigan RSA 6 Cellular Group Centennial Michigan RSA 7 Cellular Group Request for Review of Universal Service Administrative Company Decision Pursuant to Section 54.722(a) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-45 order Adopted: June 10, 2009 Released: June 10, 2009 By the Acting Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: Introduction In this order, we deny the request of Centennial Michigan RSA 6 Cellular Corp. and Centennial Michigan RSA 7 Cellular Corp. (Centennial) to reverse
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1567A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507(c) filed by Minford Local Schools IS GRANTED and its application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1797A1.txt
  • the Commission's competitive bidding rules and requirements. Accordingly, we affirm USAC's decision to deny payment of Petitioners' outstanding invoices and we deny Petitioners' request for review. ORDERING CLAUSES IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Lazo Technologies, Inc., Hill Professional Services, and Advanced Technology Solutions South IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Julie A. Veach
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1821A1.txt
  • dispute'' policy; Global Crossing should therefore have paid the disputed invoices while its appeal was pending with the Commission. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the request for review and appeal of invoices filed by Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc. are hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Julie A. Veach Acting Chief
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1822A1.txt
  • Howe ISD's request for review and direct USAC to continue any commitment adjustment recovery actions regarding this matter. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the request for review filed by Howe Independent School District 67, Howe, Oklahoma IS DENIED and REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1946A1.txt
  • other schools using Integrity as their service provider without first taking steps to determine whether similar contractual provisions exist between those schools and Integrity. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Expedited Review filed by Integrity Communications, Ltd., on December 26, 2007, IS DENIED as discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2151A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Request Pursuant to Section 54.722(a) of the Commission's Rules for Review of Universal Service Administrative Company Decision on High Cost Support Mechanism Beneficiary Appeal ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-45 ORDER Adopted: October 2, 2009 Released: October 2, 2009 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: introduction In this order, we deny the request of Centennial Communications Corp. (Centennial) for reversal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2240A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that Hazelwood's Request for Review IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2241A1.txt
  • aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Keyport School District on October 26, 2006, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2242A1.txt
  • remain eligible to apply for support from the schools and libraries mechanism in future funding years. III. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for waivers filed by Amy Biehl Charter High School, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Weld Library District, Greely, Colorado, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2243A1.txt
  • 2003, the petitioners were required to follow the specified procedures to convert their dark fiber to lit fiber services. Therefore, we deny these appeals. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Clark County School District, Letcher County School District and Tahoma School District No. 409 ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2244A1.txt
  • education to include Head Start programs. Therefore, we affirm USAC's decision to deny E-rate program funding to Rural Alaska. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Eagle Hill School, Italian Home for Children, and Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. ARE DENIED. (b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau In this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2245A1.txt
  • the Request for Waiver or Review and we uphold USAC's decision to recover all funds disbursed to Exigent in E-rate funding year 2001. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver or review filed by Exigent Technologies on August 31, 2004, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2246A1.txt
  • to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hemet Unified School District, Hemet, California, on July 23, 2008 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2247A1.txt
  • affirm USAC's decisions that the petitioners' service providers were not telecommunications carriers, as required by program rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for review listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2248A1.txt
  • review. Therefore, we affirm USAC's decision to seek recovery of the E-rate funds disbursed to Iosco for the relevant funding requests for funding year 1999. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Iosco Regional Educational Service Agency on March 19, 2004, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2251A1.txt
  • that all universal service contribution collection actions be held in abeyance pending final action on Heller's request for review by the Commission. On September 4, 2009, Heller filed a request for withdrawal of its pleadings. We grant Heller's withdrawal request and, accordingly, dismiss the above-captioned pleadings. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for withdrawal submitted by Heller Information Services, Inc., filed September 4, 2009, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-825A1.txt
  • that special circumstances warrant deviation from the general rule. Consistent with the Commission's Aberdeen School District Order, we therefore deny these petitioners' appeals. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that waivers of sections 54.504(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b) and (c), ARE GRANTED to the petitioners listed in Appendices A and B and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1018A1.txt
  • 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 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by The Bronx Charter School for Better Learning, Bronx, New York, on December 6, 2006 and April 13, 2007, ARE GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1019A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES IT IS THEREFORE 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. §§ 151-54 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Illinois State Board of Education, Chicago, Illinois, IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1022A1.txt
  • and issue an award or denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release of this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeal filed by Bradford Regional Medical Center IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1050A1.txt
  • of the two highest contribution factors from that year. See id. See ComScape Letter at 1; Millennium Letter at 1. See, e.g., Millennium Letter at 3. See ComScape Letter at 1; Millennium Letter at 2. See Second Wireless Safe Harbor Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24972, para. 36. ComScape Letter at 1; Millennium Letter at 4. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). The Commission may waive any provision of its rules on its own motion and for good cause shown. 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. A rule may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular). In addition, the Commission may take
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1122A1.txt
  • Form 499-A filings. Accordingly, we uphold USAC's decision to correct and reverse the erroneous credits applied to TMI's account. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review of the decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed by Telecom Management Inc., d/b/a Pioneer Telephone IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1265A1.txt
  • no waste, fraud or abuse of E-rate funds exist. In addition, we grant DRC's request to withdraw its petition for reconsideration. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Amended Petition for Order Directing Universal Service Administrative Company to Process Puerto Rico Department of Education's Funding Request for Services Provided by Data Research Corporation Under the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism for Years 2001 and 2002 filed by Data Research Corporation IS GRANTED. IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1350A1.txt
  • Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Theodore Burmeister, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Smith Bagley, Inc. Request for Review of a Decision of the Universal Service Administrator and Request for a Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket Nos. 08-71 and 05-337 (filed July 6, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.721, 54.722. See also High-Cost Universal Service Support, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8834 (2008) (Interim Cap Order), aff'd, Rural Cellular Ass'n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009); High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1447A1.txt
  • original FCC Form 471 filings. In such cases, applicants must file new FCC Form 471 applications for support. Accordingly, we deny their appeals. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Beth Rivka School, Buffalo City School District, Chicago Public Schools, Dale County School District, and Edison School Consortium ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief In this order, we use the term ``appeals'' to refer generally to requests for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-144A1.txt
  • 2006, the Commission's Office of the Managing Director sent a letter to Equant accepting its offer of alternative relief and stating that Equant would receive a refund of $20,063.87 for overpayment of regulatory fees for fiscal year 2000. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the above-captioned request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 0.204(b), and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 0.204(b), and 54.722(a), that the request for review or alternative relief submitted by Equant, Inc., filed June 7, 2006, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102, that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1470A1.txt
  • evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. Therefore, to the extent that Dodge County violated section 54.504(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, we find that good cause exists to waive this rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that a waiver of section 54.504(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b), IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1513A1.txt
  • filed upon their receipt at the location designated by the Commission and that filings, including revisions, can be made electronically through USAC's website. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by AT&T Inc. on June 26, 2006 IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.txt
  • be postmarked to the Commission or filed electronically in WC Docket No. 06-122 within 60 days of the issuance of the USAC decision. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review and waiver filed by Airband Communications, Inc. on July 23, 2008 and the petition filed by Airband Communications, Inc. on July 23, 2008 ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1601A1.txt
  • find that Standing Rock's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER for portions of its licensed service area on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota and South Dakota, to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. SHALL SUBMIT additional information pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1712A1.txt
  • must comply with our rules and procedures and continue to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 appeal filed by Portland Area Indian Health Service, Portland, Oregon, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration. 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,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-187A1.txt
  • request for reversal of late fees, penalties and interest assessed based on its non-payment of its billed contribution assessment. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review of the decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed by Level 3 Communications, LLC, ICG Telecom Group, Inc., Looking Glass Networks, Inc., Looking Glass Networks of Virginia, Inc., Progress Telecom, LLC, and Wiltel Communications, LLC IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1968A1.txt
  • 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Virgin Islands Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone's Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Sep. 28, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c), 54.721, and 54.722. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). PUBLIC NOTICE 10/1/2010 PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1997A1.txt
  • based on the new schools' discounts rates, as long as the amount of funding committed is the same or lower than in the original request. 5. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the petitions of Abbeville County School District, Union County School District, and Williamsburg County School District ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order to the extent provided herein. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2005A1.txt
  • that form the basis for its conclusions with respect to the reclassification of any revenues associated with NetworkIP's non-contributing customers. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Enhanced Network Telecom, LLP is hereby GRANTED in part and otherwise REMANDED to USAC for further action and consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 0.204(b), and 54.722(a) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2100A1.txt
  • 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Virgin Islands Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone's Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Oct. 21, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c), 54.721, and 54.722. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2215A1.txt
  • deadline for various funding years because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2216A1.txt
  • in the E-rate program to comply with the Commission's rules. Applicants continue to be responsible for requesting service delivery deadline extensions on time and in the proper format. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeals filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2269A1.txt
  • permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - East Ascension Telephone Company LLC and EATELCORP, INC. Appeal of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719(c), 54.721, and 54.722 of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Nov. 16, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2299A1.txt
  • more than one year. We therefore grant the request for review and remand the underlying application to USAC for processing consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Achieve Telecom Network of MA, LLC IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2300A1.txt
  • 27, 2002. Davidson's petition for reconsideration was filed with the Commission July 6, 2006. We therefore dismiss the petition for reconsideration because it is untimely. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the petition for reconsideration filed by Davidson County Schools, Lexington, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Sue Whitman, Davidson County Schools, to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2301A1.txt
  • to comply with the Commission's rules. We continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Explore Knowledge Academy Charter School, Las Vegas, Nevada; Heart and Health Academys, St. Claire Shores, Michigan; and Saint John School, Orange, New Jersey, ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2304A1.txt
  • opportunity to amend its funding requests to eliminate all ineligible services or provide additional documentation to USAC supporting the eligibility of the services in their funding requests. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2305A1.txt
  • action here does not eliminate or mitigate any of our competitive bidding requirements or the obligations of participants in the E-rate program to comply with the Commission's rules. II. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the appeal filed by Green Bay Area Public School District on May 24, 2010 IS GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2352A1.txt
  • a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decision, or because of circumstances beyond the applicants' control. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2354A1.txt
  • issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 120 calendar days from the release date of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2370A1.txt
  • also find good cause to waive section 54.720 of the Commission's rules, which establishes deadlines for affected parties to seek review of decisions issued by USAC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and Request for Waiver ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2424A1.txt
  • waive the E-rate technology plan requirements for these petitioners and remand the applications listed in the appendix to USAC for further action consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix ARE GRANTED and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. IT IS FURTHER
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2425A1.txt
  • a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decisions, or because of circumstances beyond the applicants' control. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2433A1.txt
  • find that Virgin Mobile's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER eligible only for Lifeline support for portions of its licensed service areas in Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, and New Hampshire, to the extent described in this order and subject to the conditions set forth herein. IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-486A1.txt
  • (USAC) based on USAC's determination that the petitioners untimely submitted their respective 2006 FCC Form 499-A filings. Because USAC erred in assessing the late fees and has since provided a credit to both LTS and South Miami, we dismiss their requests as moot. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.204(b),, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for review by LTS of Rocky Mount, LLC and South Miami Wash Bowl, Inc. ARE DISMISSED as moot. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-52A1.txt
  • in which USAC determined that NextGen should report subscriber line charges as interstate revenue subject to federal universal service fund contributions. On December 8, 2009, NextGen filed a letter requesting withdrawal of its request for review. We grant NextGen's withdrawal request and dismiss the above-captioned pleading. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for withdrawal submitted by NextGen Telephone, filed December 8, 2009, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-56A1.txt
  • that Thumb Cellular's FCC Form 507 was not timely filed. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) granted Thumb Cellular's appeal on November 22, 2006. Because the motion seeks a ruling on an appeal that has been granted by the Bureau, we dismiss Thumb Cellular's motion as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the motion for a ruling on appeal filed by Thumb Cellular, LLC on September 15, 2006, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Motion for a Ruling on Appeal of USAC's Denial of USF Funding by Thumb
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-648A1.txt
  • upon USAC's receipt of the form and not the postmark date. Finally, we stress the need for USAC to impose penalties when these important filing deadlines are not met, as a means to ensure that FCC Forms 499-Q are timely filed. Ordering Clauses 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, and 54.722(a), the requests for waiver of the FCC Form 499-Q revision deadline for filers listed in the Appendix ARE DISMISSED as moot. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-700A1.txt
  • conclude that USAC properly billed Alliance during 2000 for the universal service obligations resulting from Alliance's end-user revenues. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Alliance Group Services, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 1.102(b(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-724A1.txt
  • properly denied Tuba City's funding request. We therefore uphold USAC's decision and deny Tuba City's request for review. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), the appeal filed by Tuba City Regional Health Care Corporation, Tuba City, Arizona, on January 23, 2006, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.txt
  • (South Bell Letter); Letter from Kathleen J. Gerke, 10D Telecom, Inc., to Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 06-122 (filed Nov. 24, 2008) (10D Letter) (collectively, the petitioners). A full list of petitioners is contained in the Appendix. The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to consider requests for review of decisions by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). See Appendix. 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8797, para. 787 (1997) (Universal Service First Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted). The Commission also requires certain other providers of interstate telecommunications to contribute to the universal service fund. See, e.g., Universal Service Contribution Methodology,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-752A1.txt
  • 60 days of this order, so that USAC can assure that all contributions to universal service are promptly paid. Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by U.S. TelePacific Corp. is hereby GRANTED IN PART to the extent discussed herein and the Universal Service Administrative Company SHALL ACCEPT U.S. TelePacific Corp.'s re-filed 2008 FCC Form 499-A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-768A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 10-768 Released: May 5, 2010 COMMENT SOUGHT ON THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY PR WIRELESS, INC. OF AN AUDIT DECISION BY THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY WC Docket No. 05-337 Comment Date: June 4, 2010 Reply Comment Date: June 18, 2010 On April 5, 2010, PR Wireless, Inc. (PR Wireless), pursuant to sections 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, filed a request for review of an audit finding by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). Specifically, PR Wireless requests that the Commission review USAC's audit finding regarding the manner in which PR Wireless reports prepaid wireless subscribers in the universal service high-cost line counts it files with USAC. PR Wireless also requests reversal of USAC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-779A1.txt
  • to the Commission. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, parties may seek review of USAC decisions with either USAC or the Commission, but there is no requirement that parties first go to USAC before requesting review from the Commission. As such, we deny as moot inContact's request for waiver. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, 54.720, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.720, and 54.722(a), that the request for review of the decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company filed by inContact, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.204(b), 0.291, 1.3, 54.720, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.720, and 54.722(a), that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-885A1.txt
  • pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and/or Waiver of 47 C.F.R. §54.507 filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-886A1.txt
  • program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver filed by Harvest Preparatory School on July 11, 2007, IS GRANTED and the funding requests (FRNs 1348538, 1349281, 1349304, 1349341, and 1349381) ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-887A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Expanets of North America, Englewood, Colorado, on December 24, 2002, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-888A1.txt
  • continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Idaho Falls School District 91, Idaho Falls, Idaho on July 12, 2002, IS GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-929A1.txt
  • cases. As a result, we deny the petitioners' appeals as listed in Appendices A, B, and C. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the appeals filed by petitioners as listed in Appendices A, B, and C ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief Wireline
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-999A1.txt
  • financial, management, and similar information, USAC must also comply with the DCIA, which requires the use of EFT. ordering clauses 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in Appendices A-C ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1018A1.txt
  • (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 384.95 693.649 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 407 693.899 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to authority in) Tj 1 0 0 1 62.6 680.95 Tm 100 Tz (sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules,) Tj 1 0 0 1 390.95 681.2 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (47) Tj 1 0 0 1 405.1 681.149 Tm 104 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 63.35 668.2 Tm 99 Tz (1.106, and 54.722\(a\), that the petitions for reconsideration filed by Lincoln Parish, UTA, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.txt
  • with this order. In remanding these funding requests to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested therein. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), section 54.503 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.503 IS WAIVED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.txt
  • Tm 99 Tz (ACCORDiNGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 397 Tm 100 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 384.549 Tm (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 371.799 Tm 99 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by the Free Public Library of Philadelphia IS) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 359.349 Tm 98 Tz (GRANTED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108 335.799 Tm 92 Tz (24.) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1088A1.txt
  • Tj 1 0 0 1 431.25 340.349 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 453.6 340.349 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 327.649 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 300 327.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 344.6 327.649 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 314.699 Tm 100 Tz (0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 145.9 314.949 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 193.65 314.949 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-114A1.txt
  • presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Puerto Rico Telephone Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719, 54.721, and 54.722 of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Jan. 11, 2011); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1208A1.txt
  • 1 136.3 630.799 Tm 99 Tz (ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 618.5 Tm 100 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 605.799 Tm 101 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 593.1 Tm 99 Tz (that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 580.399 Tm (GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1223A1.txt
  • deadline for funding years 2010-2011 because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1239A1.txt
  • they submitted their appeals to the Commission within a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1240A1.txt
  • 0 0 1 432.7 544.85 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (and) Tj 1 0 0 1 451.65 544.85 Tm 104 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 473.75 544.6 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 532.849 Tm 110 Tz (the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.9 518.2 Tm 76 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.35 519.899 Tm 108 Tz (0.91, 0.29 1 and 54.722\(a\), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver by the petitioners) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 507.649 Tm 109 Tz (as listed in Appendices A, B,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1241A1.txt
  • they submitted their appeals to the Commission within a reasonable period of time after receiving actual notice of USAC's adverse decisions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Burlington Township School District, Holy Name of Jesus, Lakewood Cheder School, The Center for Life Enrichment, and The Potomac School ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1246A1.txt
  • to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 78.45 635.1 Tm 100 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 78.45 622.85 Tm (0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 152.599 622.85 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 197.75 622.6 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 365 620.2 Tm 86 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (§') Tj 1 0 0 1 378.2 622.149 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\), that the) Tj 1 0 0 1 78.2 609.899 Tm
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1332A1.txt
  • or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1366A1.txt
  • conclude that Totah has provided no evidence of special circumstances to demonstrate good cause to grant a waiver of the Commission's rules and we deny its petition. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722, the petition for waiver of section 36.621(a)(4) of the Commission's rules filed by Totah Communications, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE effective upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Amy E. Bender Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 450.45 635.6 Tm 94 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.55 635.35 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.65 623.35 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 320.15 623.1 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 365.5 622.85 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.9 608.45 Tm 74 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.6 610.35 Tm 99 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by the Baltimore City School District on) Tj 1 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 450 668.95 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.55 668.7 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 74.4 656.45 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules,) Tj 1 0 0 1 486 656.2 Tm 93 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (47) Tj 1 0 0 1 500.15 655.95 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 74.85 641.799 Tm 65 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 88.05 644 Tm 98 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.txt
  • 0 0 1 92.4 560.399 Tm 105 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 111.8 560.2 Tm 110 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.65 547.5 Tm 109 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 74.15 532.799 Tm 76 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.6 535 Tm 108 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 162 535 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 210 534.799 Tm 109 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (that the request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1371A1.txt
  • 0 1 144.7 500 Tm 109 Tz (ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 487.25 Tm 110 Tz (1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91,) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 474.75 Tm 111 Tz (0.291, 1.3 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722, the request) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 462.299 Tm 109 Tz (for review and waiver filed by IP Telcom, Inc. IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 109.2 443.349 Tm 96 Tz (10.) Tj 1 0 0 1 144.7 443.349 Tm 108 Tz (IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1476A1.txt
  • Letter to Maricopa County that approved the funding at issue in its appeal. We therefore dismiss without prejudice Maricopa County's request for review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed on April 9, 2009, by Maricopa County Regional School District, Phoenix, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Eric Freed, Maricopa County Regional School District, to the Office
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1477A1.txt
  • 314.949 Tm 109 Tz (ACCORDiNGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 302.199 Tm 110 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 289.75 Tm 111 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 483.1 289.25 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 277.25 Tm 109 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (the Requests for Review filed by Cornwall-Lebanon School District, Lebanon, Pennsylvania IS) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 264.299 Tm (GRANTED and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1507A1.txt
  • Commission rule. Therefore, we find good cause to grant the appeal and remand the underlying application to USAC for further action consistent with this order. 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the State of Arkansas Department of Information Systems, Little Rock, Arkansas, IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1553A1.txt
  • Tj 1 0 0 1 71 646.149 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 90.45 646.35 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority in) Tj 1 0 0 1 71 633.399 Tm 101 Tz (sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.75 620.95 Tm 99 Tz (1.106, and 54.722\(a\), that the petitions for reconsideration filed by Rockwood School District, Eureka,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 608.2 Tm (Missouri, and Yakutat School District, Yakutat, Alaska are DISMISSED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 251 571.75 Tm 100
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 450 497.8 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.05 497.8 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.95 485.349 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.2 470.649 Tm 73 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 86.6 472.599 Tm 99 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by Tulsa Technology Center on July 26,) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.7 460.149 Tm (2008, IS GRANTED.) Tj 1 0 0 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1588A1.txt
  • deadline for funding year 2011 because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A, B, and C ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.txt
  • CDW Computer Centers, Inc., Dell Marketing, LP, Nextel Communications of Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Starpower Communications, LLC, and Infosys Services, Inc. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by SEED Charter School of Washington, D.C. on April 1, 2003, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1682A1.txt
  • 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 621.899 Tm 101 Tz (4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 609.149 Tm (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 596.45 Tm 100 Tz (54.722\(a\), waiver of section 54.720 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.720, IS GRANTED to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 584 Tm 99 Tz (Franklin County School District, Louisburg, North Carolina.) Tj 1 0 0 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1698A1.txt
  • authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.95 551.35 Tm 111 Tz (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.95 538.35 Tm 110 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 163.65 538.6 Tm 107 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 209 538.6 Tm 112 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 479.25 538.6 Tm 108 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 525.899 Tm 109 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (that the request for review filed by the West
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1699A1.txt
  • the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 466.55 694.149 Tm 93 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 488.15 694.149 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 681.399 Tm 99 Tz (pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.45 668.7 Tm 100 Tz (C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by Coordinated Construction,) Tj 1 0 0 1 72.2 656 Tm 99 Tz (Inc., Los Angeles, California on June 14, 2004 IS GRANTED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108.7 631.95 Tm 84
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1791A1.txt
  • also direct USAC to waive any associated invoice filing deadlines and any other procedural deadlines that were missed while these issues were on appeal with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Covert Public School District, Covert, Michigan, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1835A1.txt
  • 100 Tz (Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 549.149 Tm (and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 536.45 Tm 101 Tz (authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 523.95 Tm 99 Tz (0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 119.25 523.95 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 167.5 523.95 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (that the requests for review filed by Lower Merion School District, Bethel School)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1840A1.txt
  • Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 87.35 662.2 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority in) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.15 649.95 Tm (sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 230.15 649.75 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 275.75 649.7 Tm 102 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3,) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.6 637 Tm 99 Tz (1.106, and 54.722\(a\), that the petition for reconsideration filed by Coatesvifle Area School District,) Tj 1 0 0 1 67.9 624.549 Tm (Coatesville, Pennsylvania IS DISMISSED.) Tj
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1841A1.txt
  • 679.75 Tm 97 Tz (1-4 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 108 679.75 Tm /OPBaseFont3 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 127.4 679.25 Tm 101 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 666.75 Tm (delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 654.299 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont3 11 Tf (54.722,) Tj 1 0 0 1 107.5 654.049 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (the request for review filed by MeetingOne, Inc. IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108.7 635.549 Tm 87 Tz (18.) Tj 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1854A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 62.6 432.75 Tm 101 Tz (254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and the authority) Tj 1 0 0 1 62.6 420.299 Tm 100 Tz (delegated pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 346.3 419.799 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 391.4 419.549 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47) Tj 1 0 0 1 62.6 407.549 Tm 98 Tz (C.F.R. § § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 202.05 407.349 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 249.6 407.099 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1974A1.txt
  • Tz (and) Tj 1 0 0 1 90.95 672.049 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 110.4 671.549 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 659.1 Tm 102 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 c.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 646.6 Tm 100 Tz (that waivers of section) Tj 1 0 0 1 174.7 646.35 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (54.503\(c\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 220.05 646.35 Tm 101 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 c.F.R. §)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.txt
  • request to Katy or its service provider, Phonoscope, USAC shall institute or continue recovery actions against them. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Katy Independent School District on July 23, 2009, IS DENIED. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated under
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1991A1.txt
  • provided herein beginning with FCC Forms 470 or requests for proposals that are posted for Funding Year 2013. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by the Queen of Peace High School on July 19, 2010, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2040A1.txt
  • USAC's adverse decision, or the late-filed appeal would never have been necessary absent an error on the part of USAC. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-291A1.txt
  • 86 percent, Barberton cannot receive funding for internal connections as part of its funding year 2006 application. Accordingly, Barberton's request for review is denied. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Barberton City School District, Barberton, Ohio, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-301A1.txt
  • and issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the Bridgeport School District, the Chester Upland School District, and the Hartford Public Schools, ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-303A1.txt
  • associated invoice filing deadlines in connection with this service deadline extension and any other procedural deadlines that were missed while these issues were on appeal with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeals filed by Blitz Communications, Inc., Chicago, Illinois; Brevard County School District, Viera, Florida; Highland Park School District, Highland Park, Michigan; Jackson Public School District, Jackson, Mississippi; and Many Farms High School, Many Farms, Arizona, ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-486A1.txt
  • within 60 days of that date, or by July 2010. Dorial did not file the instant request for review until December 2010, well after the 60-day deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722, the request for review filed by Dorial Telecom, LLC on December 15, 2010 IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-490A1.txt
  • 470-posting process with additional efforts to seek bids, it is not free to ignore the E-rate competitive bidding rules. Therefore, we deny Challis's appeal. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Challis Joint School District #181, Challis, Idaho, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-533A1.txt
  • was filed late, the district filed the appeal as soon they received actual notice of the denial. Lincoln County's appeal was only two days late. 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the Requests for Review and/or Request for Waiver filed by the petitioners as listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-566A1.txt
  • to show good cause to waive the deadline associated with the FCC Form 499-A, and accordingly we deny its requested waiver, consistent with precedent. 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, 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request filed by Manitowoc on October 1, 2010 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-578A1.txt
  • to comply with the Commission's rules. We continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the application review process. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Little Flower School, Cincinnati, Ohio, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-599A1.txt
  • has presented any special circumstances justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we deny Twiggs County's and ACS's requests for review and affirm USAC's decision. 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Twiggs County School District on September 13, 2004, and by American Control Systems, Inc. on November 11, 2004, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Letter from Carol Brown, Twiggs County Board
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-59A1.txt
  • and issue a decision based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Warren Village School on March 18, 2004, IS GRANTED and the application is REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-605A1.txt
  • funding years 2009 and 2010 because we find that the petitioners failed to present special circumstances justifying a waiver of section 54.507(c) of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-606A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules, which requires that applications must be complete when filed, to enable these petitioners to correct any SPIN errors on their FCC Forms 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Alpine Union School District, Ashland School District 5, The Lake Grove School, IVCI on behalf of The Lake Grove School, Mt. Lebanon School District, and Three Rivers Community Schools ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-607A1.txt
  • from the release date of this order. We also direct USAC to discontinue its efforts to recover funds from Southwest Plains for the telecommunications services discussed here. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by the Clare-Gladwin Regional Education Service Center and the Southwest Plains Regional Service Center, ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-656A1.txt
  • sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that this order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the petition for waiver of sections 54.307(d), 54.313, and 54.314 of the Commission's rules filed by Allied Wireless Communications Corporation IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-66A1.txt
  • Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Fulton Telephone Company Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Dec. 2, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). Although Fulton Telephone Company seeks review pursuant to section 54.716 of the Commission's rules - a section that does not exist - we will construe the filing as a request for review pursuant to section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules. See Electronic Filing of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-672A1.txt
  • C, and issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that waivers of sections 54.504(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b) and (c), ARE GRANTED to the petitioners listed in Appendices A and B and their applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-67A1.txt
  • FCC - Consolidated Communications of Fort Bend Company, Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company and Consolidated Communications of Texas Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company, WC Docket No. 05-337 (filed Dec. 2, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998). 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b). PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-68A1.txt
  • presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. - FCC - Puerto Rico Telephone Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719, 54.721, and 54.722 of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 (filed Dec. 6, 2010); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), 54.721 (General filing requirements for review of an Administrator decision), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-715A1.txt
  • review and waiver; and did not indicate it had served USAC with a copy of the request. We, therefore, dismiss without prejudice Alternative Phone's request as procedurally defective. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722, the request filed by Alternative Phone, Inc. on March 17, 2011, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.txt
  • Whittier carefully considered ASA's submission. Moreover, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, or misuse of funds. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review for those petitioners listed in Appendices A and C ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-737A1.txt
  • that form the basis for its conclusions with respect to the reclassification of any revenues associated with NetworkIP's non-contributing customers.'' Ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the petition for reconsideration filed by Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order on reconsideration SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-739A1.txt
  • sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 214, and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that this order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Waiver of Section 54.307(c) of the Commission's Rules filed by Allo Communications IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Bayland
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-741A1.txt
  • also direct the USAC to waive any associated invoice filing deadlines and any other procedural deadlines that were missed while these issues were on appeal with the Commission. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeal filed by Lancaster School District, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-752A1.txt
  • erred in directing Clear World to remit to USAC any amount of excessive line-item charges that Clear World does not refund to its customers. ordering Clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), the request for review filed by Clear World is hereby DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon E. Gillett Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Request for Review
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-81A1.txt
  • cancel the late-filed revisions and adjust deltathree's contribution obligation for the relevant time period based on the original estimates and deltathree's actual revenues as reported in its annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722, the request filed by deltathree, Inc. on May 27, 2010 IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-820A1.txt
  • the filing window. In addition, we find no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse in the record at this time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 the authority delegated pursuant to authority in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that sections 54.507(c) and 54.720(c) of the Commission's rules ARE WAIVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-82A1.txt
  • of the company or other knowledgeable individual. As such, we have insufficient basis to take any action on CML's request other than to dismiss its request without prejudice as procedurally defective. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 254(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 254(d), and the authority delegated by section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722, the request filed by CML Communications LLC on November 1, 2010 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order SHALL BE transmitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-835A1.txt
  • of section 54.503 of the Commission's rules in this instance is in the public interest and deny Juvenile Service's request for waiver. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), that the request for waiver of section 54.503 of the Commission's rules filed by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services on January 3, 2006, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-83A1.txt
  • review of the documentation and discontinue its recovery action against Youthbuild, if so warranted, no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Youthbuild Columbus Community School IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-859A1.txt
  • find that AT&T Mobility's certification satisfies the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as codified in sections 1.2001-1.2003 of the Commission's rules. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 54.722(a), AT&T Mobility LLC IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER to serve Tribal members residing on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT&T Mobility LLC SHALL SUBMIT additional information pursuant to section 54.209 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-85A1.txt
  • we direct USAC to issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bryan Independent School District IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-864A1.txt
  • 1 142.55 516.75 Tm 99 Tz (ACCORDiNGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.25 504.05 Tm 100 Tz (1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to sections 0.91,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 491.55 Tm 101 Tz (0.291, 1.3 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722, the request) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 478.849 Tm 99 Tz (filed by BCG, Inc. IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 106.8 453.399 Tm 87 Tz (9.) Tj 1 0 0 1 142.8 453.399 Tm 99 Tz (IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-86A1.txt
  • to issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Bayless Intermediate School on March 28, 2006 IS GRANTED and the application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-87A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-87A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-87A1.txt
  • support based on the new schools' discounts rates, as long as the amount of funding committed is the same or lower than in the original requests. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the requests for waiver filed by the Camden City Public Schools, the School District of Greenville County, and the Lenoir County Public Schools ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications are REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with this order no later than 60 calendar days from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-88A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-88A1.txt
  • omitted item 21 attachments, USAC should treat the associated applications as out of window for the purposes of meeting the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 254, and 403, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that this report and order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.103(a), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-895A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 89.5 608.2 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 108.95 608 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.799 595.5 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.799 582.75 Tm (0.91, 0.291, 54.722\(a\), that the request for review filed by Cascade School District #422 on October 10,) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 570.299 Tm 98 Tz (2006, IS DENIED.) Tj 1 0 0 1 108 546.549 Tm 85 Tz (10.) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-896A1.txt
  • 1 0 0 1 108 595.25 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and 254, and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.6 582.75 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 297.6 582.549 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 342.95 582.299 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.6 569.799 Tm (0.91, 0.291, 54.722\(a\), that the requests for review filed by the Gila Bend Unified School District No. 24,) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.35 557.35 Tm (regarding FCC Form 471 application number
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-897A1.txt
  • sections 1-4 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 567.399 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254) Tj 1 0 0 1 89.75 567.149 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151-154 and 254, and authority delegated) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 554.45 Tm 101 Tz (under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0,291, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 541.75 Tm 99 Tz (54.722\(a\), that the Request for Review filed by Odyssey Charter School, Las Vegas, Nevada, IS) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 529.25 Tm (GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-127A1.txt
  • Wireless, Inc. Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company Pursuant to Sections 54.719 through 54.725 of the Commission's rules and Petition for Waiver of Section 54.307(b) of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket Nos. 08-71, 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Jan. 17, 2012); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719(c) (Review of decisions issued by the Administrator), and 54.722 (Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau for request of review of a decision by the Administrator). 47 C.F.R § 54.307(b) (Filing requirements for a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier to be eligible to receive high-cost universal service support). 47 C.F.R. § 54.307(b). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-151A1.txt
  • listed in the appendix because the petitioners have failed to show special circumstances necessary for the Commission to waive the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-189A1.txt
  • the petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials reviewed in this order against the parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.txt
  • and Trillion's appeals and affirm USAC's decisions. We direct USAC to continue its recovery actions against Marana and Trillion. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Marana Unified School District as listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-200A1.txt
  • and committed. We thus deny in part e-BI's request for waiver seeking an expansion of the pilot participants' funding commitments. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 254, and 403, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that this order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-240A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-241A1.txt
  • price. We find that these 16 petitioners also did not demonstrate that good cause exists to justify a waiver of section 54.523 of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review or request for waiver filed by Fairfield County School District IS GRANTED and its underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-247A1.txt
  • not conduct a fair and open competitive bidding process. We further find that the petitioners have not demonstrated that good cause exists to waive the requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Laurens County School District
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-248A1.txt
  • eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties based on the denials that are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendices ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-24A1.txt
  • Tm 91 Tz ('Walnut Hill Telephone Company Request for Review of a Decision by the Universal Service Administrative) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.85 183.85 Tm (Company Pursuant to Section 1.3, 32.18,) Tj 1 0 0 1 237.35 183.649 Tm 88 Tz /OPBaseFont5 11 Tf (54.719) Tj 1 0 0 1 267.6 183.399 Tm 91 Tz /OPBaseFont4 11 Tf (and 54.722 of the Commission's rules and Petition for Waiver of) Tj 1 0 0 1 69.1 172.099 Tm (Section 32.27\(c\) of the Commission's Rules, WC Docket No. 08-71 \(filed Dec. 22, 2011\); 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 477.35 169.75 Tm 65 Tz /OPBaseFont3 11 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 489.6 171.399 Tm 88 Tz /OPBaseFont6 11 Tf
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-250A1.txt
  • record, we affirm USAC's decisions and deny these requests. We also find that petitioners have not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed AllWays, Inc. (Prairie Hills
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-259A1.txt
  • the Petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against the Petitioners for those applications listed in Appendix A from which it is seeking recovery. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the Petitioners for the applications listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-260A1.txt
  • competitive bidding requirements. In addition, we find that petitioners have not demonstrated that good cause exists to justify a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Charlton County School System
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-261A1.txt
  • to grant a limited waiver of section 54.504(c) of our rules and remand Oakland's appeal to USAC for further processing consistent with our decision. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review and waiver filed by Oakland Unified School District IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-278A1.txt
  • petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials we reviewed in this order for those parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-27A1.txt
  • /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 450 592.149 Tm 104 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 472.05 592.149 Tm 108 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.549 579.649 Tm 111 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\), the) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.049 566.95 Tm 110 Tz (requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A and B ARE) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 554.45 Tm (GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-28A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-28A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-28A1.txt
  • 0 0 1 449.5 706.35 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 471.8 706.35 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and pursuant to) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.299 693.649 Tm 99 Tz (authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.29 1, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 299 693.649 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 344.4 693.649 Tm 103 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the commission's rules, 47 c.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 70.799 678.75 Tm 69 Tz (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 84.2 680.95 Tm 100 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722\(a\), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by the) Tj 1 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-29A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 448.3 286.849 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (254,) Tj 1 0 0 1 470.85 286.849 Tm /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (and sections) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.85 274.6 Tm 100 Tz (0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and) Tj 1 0 0 1 162.95 274.6 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 208.05 274.35 Tm 103 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and) Tj 1 0 0 1 480.95 274.149 Tm 97 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (54.722\(a\),) Tj 1 0 0 1 68.6 261.649 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (the Requests for Review filed by Los Lunas School
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-300A1.txt
  • its review of the applications listed in appendix B, USAC shall discontinue recovery actions against those applicants that provide sufficient documentation to support their discount calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-323A1.txt
  • the submitted invoices. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-334A1.txt
  • release date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or NATIVE's applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review filed by Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of Vocational Education IS GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-335A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by Mary Queen of Martyrs and Norwalk La Mirada Unified School District ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-369A1.txt
  • each application and deny these requests. We also find that petitioners have not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of section 54.505 of the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Enterprise City Schools Enterprise,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-370A1.txt
  • urban pursuant to E-rate program rules. We also find that petitioners have not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of section 505(b)(3) the Commission's E-rate rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX A Appeals Denied on the Merits Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-403A1.txt
  • negotiate with prospective bidders.'' We thus direct USAC to continue recovery actions against the party or parties responsible for the rule violation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the appeals listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioners Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Appeal Filed Networks and More! Inc. 229937 2001 January 3, 2007 251684 2001 319633 2002 297874 2002 298093 2002
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-413A1.txt
  • petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials we reviewed in this order for those parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-433A1.txt
  • ``except upon leave granted upon a separate pleading for leave to file.'' Because no such separate pleading has been submitted, we dismiss the petition as untimely. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, 1.106, 54.722(a), the petition for reconsideration filed by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Letter from Nancy Seidman, Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02-6
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-460A1.txt
  • of this order. In remanding the application to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested or Approach Learning's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review filed by the Approach Learning and Assessment Center IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Requests for Review of Decisions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-489A1.txt
  • with this order. We direct USAC, in light of the foregoing, to take into consideration the revised discount calculation in its recovery action related to Friendship. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review filed by the petitioners listed in the Appendix A ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-569A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-596A1.txt
  • Nuestros Valores's request. We also find that Nuestros Valores has not demonstrated good cause justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Nuestros Valores Charter School regarding equipment that was not installed in funding year 2003, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(d) (requiring that the implementation of non-recurring services occur
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-599A1.txt
  • of section 54.504 of the Commission's rules. We further find that Portales has not demonstrated that good cause exists to waive the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Portales Municipal School District ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9029, para. 481 (1997)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-604A1.txt
  • eligibility of the services or the underlying applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties based on the denials that are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-605A1.txt
  • eligibility of the services or the underlying applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties based on the denials that are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review filed by Trillion Partners, Inc. ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-629A1.txt
  • Two services for those funding years when South Bay's discount was lower than the threshold for funding Priority Two requests. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), the Petition for Waiver filed by South Bay Union School District on March 30, 2004 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-691A1.txt
  • is seeking recovery, and from Fayetteville or Cumberland County Library, except with respect to the support for the latter's purchase of telecommunications, which USAC should recover. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-693A1.txt
  • we also direct USAC to extend any procedural deadlines, such as the FCC Form 486 or invoicing deadlines, that might be necessary to effectuate our ruling. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for review and waiver filed by Onslow County School District and the supplement to the request for review and waiver filed by North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-708A1.txt
  • In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioner's applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Saint Raphael Academy as listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-711A1.txt
  • review of the record, we deny the 10 requests because the petitioners have failed to show special circumstances necessary for the Commission to waive the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Alex Public School Dist I-56
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-716A1.txt
  • release date of this order. In remanding this application to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioner's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Billings School District 2, Billings, Montana, IS GRANTED and the underlying application is REMANDED consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-720A1.txt
  • support to each of the relevant health care facilities as of the beginning on the circuit acceptance (start) date. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722, that the requests for review filed by YKHC and GCI on August 23, 2010, ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-732A1.txt
  • services or the petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against those parties listed in Appendix A-C based on our findings in this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in appendices A, B and C ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-747A1.txt
  • In remanding this application to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioner's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Birmingham City Schools on February 25, 2004 is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-753A1.txt
  • petitioners' applications. We direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions based on the denials we reviewed in this order for those parties whose requests are addressed herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-754A1.txt
  • issue an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from the release date of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request filed by Diversified Computer Solutions, Inc. on December 24, 2002 IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent B. Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-771A1.txt
  • to the Florence, Marlboro and Orangeburg school districts were funded. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals Diversified filed on behalf of Fairfield, Florence, Marlboro and Orangeburg as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Diversified Computer Solutions, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina, on behalf of Fairfield County School District, Florence County School District 3, Marlboro County School District and Orangeburg County School District 3, on April 22, 2002 and on March 14, 2002, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-796A1.txt
  • consistent with this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in Appendices A and B ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-797A1.txt
  • Based on our review of the record, we find that the five petitioners failed to show that the entities denied funding are eligible for E-rate support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent B. Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed CCRC Community Link Breese,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-812A1.txt
  • to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioner's application. At this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse in the record. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-84A1.txt
  • the submitted invoices. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services requested or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Gina M. Spade Deputy Chief Telecommunications Access Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-855A1.txt
  • of the submitted documentation. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review and for waiver and review filed by the petitioners listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications listed in Appendices A and B ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-85A1.txt
  • to the ultimate eligibility of the services or of Loneman's application. At this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud and abuse in the record. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the request for review or waiver filed by Loneman Day School, Ogala, South Dakota, IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-863A1.txt
  • not required to use the eligibility criteria for the Lifeline program provided for in section 54.409(a) and (b) of the Commission's rules until April 1, 2013. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the request for waiver filed by USTelecom are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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, 254, and sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-86A1.txt
  • these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in appendix A ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-894A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), the requests for review or requests for waiver listed in the appendix ARE GRANTED and those applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-895A1.txt
  • USAC to continue its recovery actions against Milburn and its service provider, Lewis, for FRNs 1274644, 1274673, 1387671, 1387637, and 1387642 to the extent provided herein. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Milburn Public Schools on June 24, 2010 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART to the extent provided herein, and the underlying funding request numbers 1274660 and 1274682 ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-914A1.txt
  • funds. Consistent with this order, we direct USAC to issue a revised COMAD letter to Kearney within 60 calendar days from the release date of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Kearney Public Schools, Kearney, Nebraska, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-915A1.txt
  • USAC to discontinue recovery actions against Marconi and to instead seek recovery against HCS, if it is feasible to do so. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the request for waiver filed by Marconi Communications, Inc., on December 14, 2004 IS GRANTED and the underlying application IS REMANDED to USAC for further action consistent with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-934A1.txt
  • the Commission may exercise its authority to revoke such petitioner's ETC designation. The Commission also may assess forfeitures for violations of Commission rules and orders. ordering clauses ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), i-WIRELESS, LLC. IS DESIGNATED AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER eligible only for Lifeline support for those portions of its licensed service areas in Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, listed in Appendix B to the extent described in this Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-957A1.txt
  • of the submitted invoices. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners' applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for waiver and review filed by Annunciation Elementary School and Hamilton County School District ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-962A1.txt
  • date of this order. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the underlying applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the requests for review filed by Colorado Springs School District ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-975A1.txt
  • wireline ETC, Verizon Washington, DC Inc., that new subscribers meet the income or program-based eligibility requirements of the Lifeline program and have executed a certification form. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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, 254, and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that section 54.410(d) is WAIVED to the limited extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon Gillett Chief See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Rulemaking, WC Dkt. Nos. 11-42 et al., CC Dkt. No. 96-45, FCC 12-11 (rel. Feb 6,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-985A1.txt
  • our review of the record, we deny the eight requests because the petitioners have failed to show special circumstances necessary for the Commission to waive the deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the requests for review or requests for waiver filed by the petitioners listed in the appendix ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Trent B. Harkrader Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau APPENDIX Petitioner Application Number(s) Funding Year Date Request for Review/Waiver Filed Churchill County School District Fallon,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218325A1.txt
  • sentence of Paragraph 5 of the released text should read as follows: ``Upon review of the record in the Request for Review, we conclude that King and Queen's application does not meet the standards articulated in Naperville.'' Paragraph 6 of the released text should read as follows: ``Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by King and Queen County Public Schools, King and Queen Courthouse, Virginia, on July 12, 2000 IS DENIED.'' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lloyd A. Hamlin, King and Queen County Public Schools,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-305999A1.txt
  • we direct USAC to discontinue recovery actions against these petitioners and to process any outstanding invoices.'' Paragraph 9 on page 4 is corrected to read as follows: ``IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that USAC SHALL DISCONTINUE its recovery actions against Albuquerque School District, Albuquerque, NM, and Hope Lutheran School, Inc., Waukesha, WI.'' Appendix A of the Order is amended by correcting the Application Number and the Funding Year for Albuquerque School District to read as follows: Applicant Application Number Funding Year Date
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308928A1.txt
  • Name of Jesus School, The Center for Life Enrichment, and The Potomac School.'' Paragraph 3 is corrected to read as follows: ``ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review and/or Requests for Waiver filed by Burlington Township School District, Holy Name of Jesus, Lakewood Cheder School, The Center for Life Enrichment, and The Potomac School ARE GRANTED and their underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-73A1.txt
  • of the applicants; (2) the omitted information could be easily discerned by SLD through examination of other information included in the application; and (3) the application is otherwise substantially complete. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, is REMANDED to the Schools and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
  • Commission the final audit report. (k) Based on the final audit report, the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may take any action necessary to ensure that the universal service support mechanisms operate in a manner consistent with the requirements of this Part, as well as such other action as is deemed necessary and in the public interest. 96. Section 54.722 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 54.722 Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission. (a) Requests for review of Administrator decisions that are submitted to the Federal Communications Commission shall be considered and acted upon by the Wireline Competition Bureau; provided, however, that requests for review that raise novel questions of fact, law
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-339A1.txt
  • documents through the ECFS system. We strongly encourage parties to make use of the ECFS filing option to ensure that their requests for review arrive at the Commission in a timely fashion. Our ECFS filing option ensures accurate and more efficient processing. Parties will still be able to file by facsimile at 202-418-0187. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in Attachment A are DEEMED timely filed with the Commission. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the requests for review listed in Attachment B ARE GRANTED a 60-day opportunity to resubmit their pleadings electronically with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-8A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-8A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-8A1.txt
  • for requests seeking review of decisions issued on or after August 13, 2001. See Implementation of Interim Filing Procedures for Filings of Requests for Review, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, FCC 01-376 (rel. December 26, 2001; erratum rel. December 28, 2001; second erratum rel. January 4, 2002). 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). >. Eighth Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 25058, 25091-25094, paras. 66-71. USAC's operations include three divisions created pursuant to the Commission's regulations: the High Cost and Low Income Division, the Schools and Libraries Division, and the Rural Health Care Division, each of which is responsible for its respective universal service support mechanism. 47 C.F.R. § 54.701(g)(1). For each of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.txt
  • in the program. The Administrator's diligence in finding and addressing the problems cited in the instant Order for Funding Year 2002 are a reflection of that commitment. We direct the Administrator to carefully scrutinize the applications submitted following the re-bidding process, to ensure full compliance with all of our rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §54.722(a), that the following Requests for Review ARE DENIED: Request for Review filed by Ysleta Independent School District, El Paso, Texas, on January 30, 2003; Request for Review filed by International Business Machines, Inc., on behalf of Ysleta Independent School District, El Paso, Texas, filed on January 30, 2003; Request for Review of Donna
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-314A1.txt
  • remand the Winston-Salem application to SLD. In doing so, we emphasize that we make no determination as to whether the applicant is ultimately entitled to any funding, as SLD must scrutinize all applications for ineligible services and compliance with all program rules, including all prospective clarifications enunciated in the Ysleta Order. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the above-captioned Requests for Review ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein and REMANDED to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Winston-Salem / Forsyth County School District, CC Docket
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.txt
  • if, for some reason, USAC has mistakenly disbursed an amount in excess of that which the entity is allowed under our rules. If there are unique reasons why a particular entity believes recovery for a rule violation is inappropriate, that party is always free to present such information in seeking review of USAC's decision to recover monies, pursuant to section 54.722. We note, however, that we are without authority to waive statutory violations. While we have not, to date, enunciated a bright line standard for determining whether a particular funding request or activities related to it depart from this standard to a degree that constitutes waste, fraud or abuse, we emphasize that we, and USAC in the first instance, retain the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-72A1.txt
  • Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202, 9221, paras. 55-56 (2003). 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(b). Letter from Ray Swinney, Superintendent, Mescalero Apache School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30, 2002 (Request for Review); Bureau Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 26095, para. 2. Request for Review. Id. at 1. Id. Id. Id. 47 C.F.R. §54.722(a). Bureau Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 26095, para. 3. Id. at 26095-96, paras. 4-7. Id. at 26095, para. 3. Application for Review at 5-6. The Bureau has granted few Requests for Review for missing a SLD appeal deadline. In the cases that have been granted, the Bureau generally found evidence of mistake on the part of SLD or some other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-112A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 96-45 order Adopted: July 31, 2006 Released: August 7, 2006 By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement. introduction In this Order, we grant requests for review filed by Darien Telephone Company, Inc. (Darien), Logan Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Logan), and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company (R&B) pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. The companies request that the Commission review decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) that significantly reduced the companies' safety net additive support, and deducted previously dispersed safety net additive support from their universal service support payments. USAC recalculated the companies' safety net additive support pursuant to the Wireline Competition Bureau's (Bureau's) guidance in interpreting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-170A1.txt
  • 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 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 Kan-ed, Kansas Board of Regents' Request for Waiver IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as described herein. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-54A1.txt
  • 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 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-55A1.txt
  • USAC completes its application review procedures for the appeals identified in this Order, it may conclude that funding is not warranted and deny the request. ORDERING CLAUSES 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), this Order IS ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all pending appeals before this Commission identified in the Appendix of this Order ARE REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.txt
  • 493 U.S. at 153, where the Court observed that ``[t]he objects sought merely must have been `compiled' when the Government invokes the Exemption.'' AFR at 1, 2. 47 C.F.R. § 54.701. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15810. See id., 19 FCC Rcd at 15808, 15809, 15811, 15817 & n.49, 15819, 15830 and 15835. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.722 and 54.723. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15809 and 15835. See, e.g., Burka v. Dep't of Health & Human Svcs, 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finding data tapes created and possessed by a contractor to be agency records because of extensive supervision exercised by agency which evidenced ``constructive control''). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). AFR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-181A1.txt
  • 36.605 of the Commission's rules provides that carriers may qualify for safety net additive support in more than one year. Specifically, the Commission granted requests for review of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) filed by Darien Telephone Company, Inc. (Darien), Logan Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Logan), and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company (R&B) pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. USAC's decisions significantly reduced the companies' safety net additive support, and deducted previously dispersed safety net additive support from their universal service support payments. USAC had recalculated the companies' safety net additive support pursuant to the Wireline Competition Bureau's (Bureau's) guidance in interpreting section 36.605 of the Commission's rules. The Commission found that the Bureau's interpretation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-60A1.txt
  • of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 filed by the petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-61A1.txt
  • the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 filed by the petitioners as listed in Appendix A and B ARE GRANTED AND REMANDED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-62A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-62A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-62A1.txt
  • integrity of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 section 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the petitioners as listed in Appendices A, B and C ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-63A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-63A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-63A1.txt
  • the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 47. C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b)(4) and (c) ARE WAIVED, to the extent detailed herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-64A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-64A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-64A1.txt
  • instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 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 pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Macomb Intermediate School District Technology Consortium, Clinton Township, Michigan, IS DENIED in part and GRANTED in part and IS REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-160A1.txt
  • assist such providers in obtaining FCC Filer IDs and filing FCC Forms 499-Q and FCC Forms 499-A, consistent with the Commission's requirements. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, 202, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 202, and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that InterCall's Request for Review IS DENIED IN PART, and GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that InterCall's Petition for Stay is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1.103(a) and 1.4(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.103(a), 1.4(b)(2), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-83A1.txt
  • (the Commission retains the ultimate control over the operation of the federal universal service support mechanisms through its authority to establish rules governing the support mechanisms and its review of administrative decisions that are appealed to the Commission). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c) (any person aggrieved by an action of USAC may seek review from the Commission); 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a) (requests for review will be acted on by WCB in the first instance, except for novel questions of fact, law or policy, which will be acted on by the full Commission). The Commission may review USAC decisions sua sponte. See Changes to the Board of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd at 25093 ¶ 68 (granting WCB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-122A1.txt
  • justifying waiver. Therefore, we find that the 160 petitioners listed in appendix D did not present special circumstances justifying a waiver of the Commission's rules. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 appeals filed by the petitioners, as listed in appendices A, B, and C, ARE GRANTED and the applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.txt
  • report and order in the Federal Register. 119. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.723(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification or Waiver filed by E-rate Central, as identified in paragraph 84 herein, IS DISMISSED. 120. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 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 pursuant to the authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-27A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-27A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-27A1.txt
  • this order. Accordingly, we remand the underlying funding year 2008 and 2009 FCC Form 471 applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order. ordering clauses 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 underlying applications associated with the Requests for Waivers filed by the State of Louisiana Department of Education, the Recovery School District, and the New Orleans Public Schools filed on June 28, 2006, April 20, 2009, June 22, 2009, July 16, 2009, and August 4, 2009, respectively, ARE GRANTED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-39A1.txt
  • of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 by Chicago Public Schools, Coosa County School District, Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools, Holyoke School District, KIPP Academy, and Whitley County School System ARE GRANTED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-60A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-60A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-60A1.txt
  • Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Ann Arbor Public Schools, et al., Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD-542873, et al., CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17319, para. 2 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2010). See Bishop Perry Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5327, para. 26. . 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). 1-60 1-60 � � â w é
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-46A1.txt
  • 2 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2004), applications for review pending (One-Year Deadline Order). 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(e). 47 C.F.R. § 54.711(a). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 54.707. See Universal Service Administrative Company, Program Integrity: Audits & Assessments, available at http://www.usac.org/cont/about/program-integrity/audits.aspx (last visited Apr. 17, 2012). Contributors that disagree with USAC audits findings may seek review by the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.722. 47 C.F.R. § 54.708. 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(d). 47 C.F.R. § 54.713(a). 47 C.F.R. § 54.713(c). 47 U.S.C. § 503. See Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Universal Service Fund Enforcement, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/usfc/Oth.html (last visited Mar. 14, 2012). Since 2003, the Enforcement Bureau has issued over 50 Notices of Apparent Liability, Forfeiture Orders, and Consent Decrees relating to universal service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-8A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-8A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-8A1.txt
  • Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (writ of replevin); Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337 (1969) (wage garnishment). See 2004 Audit Resolution Plan, 20 FCC Rcd at 1065. See id. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 347-348. See Schools and Libraries Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15816, para. 24. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.722. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.1.115 (a), 54.719(c). See 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). See AFR at 11. In its previous filings, Integrity asked the Bureau to set specific time limits on USAC's review. See, e.g., Request for Review at 25-26; Petition for Reconsideration at 3. See supra para. 11. (continued...) Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-8 p q `„Ð � � �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992144.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992144.txt
  • on January 1, 1998. Because the Eighth Reconsideration Order's rules were not in effect at the time USD 217 received the funding commitment decision for which it sought review by USAC, its appeal to USAC is not governed by the filing deadline set forth in those rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 12, 1999, by the United School District 217 of Rolla, Kansas, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that USD 217's application IS REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division of USAC for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992202.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Therefore, Methacton was required to file its appeal of Audubon's November 20, 1998 Funding Commitment Decision Letter no later than December 21, 1998. Thus, we dismiss the Audubon portion of the appeal for Methacton's failure to satisfy the ÁACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under À 0.91, 9.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 18, 1999 by the Methacton School District IS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992219.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992219.txt
  • notice of the rules was provided long before St. Margaret's-McTernan was required to file its appeal with the Administrator. Moreover, St. Margaret's-McTernan has failed to show why it should not be held to the same standard of notice as all parties potentially affected by this rule. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed July 20, 1999 by St. Margaret's-McTernan School IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 254 (h)(1)(B). 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. See Letter from Henry A. Cirpiano, Jr. to Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992239.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992239.txt
  • the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 4, 1999 by the Bremerton School District 100-C IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa M. Zaina Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2239
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992242.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992242.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 9, 1999 by the Monrovia Consortium IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lisa M. Zaina Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2242 \ \ þÿÿÿ
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992365.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992365.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 2, 1999 by the Lancaster County Public Schools of Kilmarnock, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. 99-2365
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992366.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992366.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 2, 1999 by the Norfolk Public Schools of Norfolk, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. ##-#### 99-2366
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992368.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992368.txt
  • two services being considered separately on their own merits. Therefore, we remand Sparta's application to SLD and we direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Sparta Area School District, Sparta, Wisconsin on June 3, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992486.doc
  • pending before the Administrator. Therefore, the Common Carrier Bureau dismisses HCUSD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on HCUSD's initial appeal, HCUSD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Havana Community Unit School District 126 of Havana, Illinois, on August 11, 1999, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Kristina J. Lewis, Havana Community Unit Schools District
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992487.doc
  • one and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Hewlett-Woodmere's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Hewlett-Woodmere UFSD, Woodmere, New York, on June 9, 1999 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992488.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 14, 1999 by the Independence Unified School District 446 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2488 \
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992489.doc
  • two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand North Middlesex's application to SLD and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Middlesex Regional School District, Townsend, Massachusetts, on May 11, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992490.doc
  • priority one and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Olton's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Olton Branch Library, Olton, Texas, on June 21, 1999 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992534.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992534.txt
  • Gustine submit one. Had the March 16, 1998 copy of the contract existed then, Gustine had the opportunity to provide it at that time. In light of this circumstance, the record in this proceeding demonstrates that SLD's funding decision was fully in accord with the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Gustine Independent School District, Gustine, Texas, filed June 21, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 U.S.C. § 254 (h)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 504.503. 47 C.F.R. § 54.504. 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(1) and (b)(3). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992537.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992537.txt
  • Sulphur Springs is entitled to discounts for this service. To the extent necessary to effectuate the decision above, we grant a waiver of section 54.507(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. This rule provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by White Sulphur Springs School District on April 22, 1999, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review White Sulphur Springs' funding application and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter consistent with the decision above. IT IS FURTHER
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992588.doc
  • ensure that the service provider it had contracted with was indeed a telecommunications provider whose status as a telecommunications provider would be appropriately reflected in the Form 498. In light of these findings, we conclude that SLD correctly denied funding for MAISD's request for telecommunications discounts. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Bresnan Communications on June 24, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992590.doc
  • indicate that the Administrator never received that letter of appeal. The proffered copy of the January 26, 1999 letter, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that the letter was filed with the Administrator within the thirty-day appeal window. We, therefore, dismiss Rainbow's appeal as untimely filed. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Pediatric Library of Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio, on June 24, 1999, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Thomas W. Hayes, Director, Pediatric Learning Center of Rainbow Babies and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992591.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it is dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Peoria Public Schools on June 25, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2591 Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2591 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ðÿÿÿ
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992604.doc
  • or equipment that do not qualify as telecommunications services, Internet access, or internal connections. While video service is an eligible telecommunications service, Western Heights' internal connections hardware used to support this service is not eligible for discounts because it does not provide a necessary transmission function. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Western Heights School District on June 24, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992611.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Brighton New York School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2611 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � `
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992612.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by Cotulla Independent School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2612 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ±
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992613.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Forsyth County Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2613 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ± Á Ñ á ñ „0ý
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992614.doc
  • and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Greenfield's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Greenfield School District on July 2, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992615.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 25, 1999 by the Pioneerland Library System IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2615 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ± Á
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992616.doc
  • products. Additionally, it indicated that it would not provide funding for possible change orders. The record evidence in this case indicates that the amount of ineligible products and services total $137,000, representing 62 percent of the requested amount. Under these circumstances, SLD properly denied Redwood's request. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Redwood City School District on June 25, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992617.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Spencer East Brookfield Regional School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2617 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992727.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992727.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator. Therefore, we dismiss Chadron's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Chadron's initial appeal, Chadron may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Chadron Public Library, Chadron, Nebraska on September 7, 1999 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Imogene Horse, Director, and Dana Crews, Technical Services Librarian, Chadron Public Library, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992728.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992728.txt
  • adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Horton's request to waive the rule and to reopen its case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Horton Free Public Library, Horton, Kansas, on September 7, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Universal Service Administrative Co. to Horton Free Public Library, dated July 8, 1999 (Funding Commitment Decision Letter) (emphasis added).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992729.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992729.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 10, 1999 by the Logandale Middle School, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2729
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992730.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992730.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letters of Appeal were not filed within the specified 30-day period, they will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed September 13, 1999 and September 21, 1999 by the Yeshiva of Central Queens ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### 99-2730 \
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992772.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992772.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 13, 1999 by the Regional Educational Media Center IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2772 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992784.doc
  • SPIN change was not necessitated by any default on the part of the original vendor. Rather, it resulted from the school's own voluntary action. Thus, because Delaplaine's SPIN change request did not fall within the enumerated exceptions, we find that the Administrator correctly denied the request. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Delaplaine Public Schools on September 14, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992785.doc
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 15, 1999 by the Sacred Heart Parish School IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99-xxxx Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2785 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Âÿÿÿ Íÿÿÿ Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ñÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ @& „|ü !
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992796.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992796.txt
  • fail to present any special circumstances warranting a waiver. Carolina's explanation for failing to file its appeal within the 30-day deadline does not provide a basis for treating it differently from other applicants that are required to appeal SLD's decision in accordance with specified filing deadlines. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 20, 1999 by Carolina Friends School IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(b); see also "SLD Procedure for Post-Commitment Appeals" at http://www.sl.universalservice/org/reference/appeals.asp. ("To submit a letter of appeal to the SLD":
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992797.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992797.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 20, 1999 by Foxcroft Academy IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2797 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ñÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ Çÿÿÿ Óÿÿÿ Ôÿÿÿ Öÿÿÿ @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992798.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992798.txt
  • of time that corresponds to Joplin's instant funding request. 8. To the extent necessary to effectuate the decision above, we waive section 54.507(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. This rule section provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Joplin R8 School District on June 16, 1999 IS GRANTED and REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of the ruling in this order. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992799.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992799.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 24, 1999 by the Lincoln Intermediate Unit IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2799 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ±
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992800.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992800.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 19, 1999 by Putnam City Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2800 Îÿÿÿ Ïÿÿÿ Ñÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ Çÿÿÿ Òÿÿÿ Óÿÿÿ Ôÿÿÿ Öÿÿÿ @& „|ü ! 1 A
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992801.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992801.txt
  • further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. To the extent necessary to effectuate the decision above, we grant a waiver of section 54.507(b) of the Commission's rules. This rule provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Simpson County School District, Mendenhall, Mississippi, filed June 29, 1999, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and that Simpson County's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that section 54.507(b)(2), 47 C.F.R. §
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992802.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992802.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 21, 1999 by White Oak Public School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2802 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992803.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992803.txt
  • decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 17, 1999 by St. John - St. James Lutheran School, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2803 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � `
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992831.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 17, 1999 by John Curtis Christian Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -2831
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992832.doc
  • the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. §1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 17, 1999 by the Morton Memorial Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 99- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2832 @& „|ü ! 1 A Q a q � ` ¡ ±
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992833.doc
  • within 30 days of the date of the decision. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period and Wilkinsburg has not made a showing warranting the acceptance of its late-filed appeal, the Request for Review will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 8, 1999 by the School District of the Borough of Wilkinsburg, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Wilkinsburg Request for Review at 2. -2833 -2833 ! H r s ` '' ²
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992954.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992954.txt
  • contract for services delivered from January 1, 1999 through June 30, 1999. We, therefore, remand Chatham's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and any further consultations with the applicant that may be necessary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Chatham County Schools, Pittsboro, North Carolina, on April 19, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992955.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992955.txt
  • it does not provide a basis for granting Crookston's appeal. Crookston bears the responsibility for reviewing the forms it files with SLD for any discrepancies or errors. Its failure to rectify its error in a timely manner provides an insufficient basis for granting the requested relief. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Crookston Public Schools on August 30, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992956.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992956.txt
  • such clarifying information. Instead, New Kensington has submitted entirely new information to the Commission, omitting mention of ineligible services previously requested, and requesting for the first time funding for certain additional services. Under these circumstances, we must affirm SLD's denial of New Kensington's application for discounted services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by New Kensington-Arnold School District on May 24, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992957.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992957.txt
  • issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. To effectuate the decision above, we recognize that it may be necessary also to waive section 54.507 of the Commission's rules. This rule section provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Runnemede Public Schools, Runnemede, New Jersey on September 10, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Runnemede's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.91 and 0.291 that
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da992983.doc
  • signature of a representative of the carrier, it does not meet the definition of an existing contract, and USAC properly refused to provide support to Sidney Health Center, Glendive Medical Center, Colstrip Medical Center, and the Eastern Montana Community Mental Health Center based upon an existing contract. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on August 23, 1999 by Eastern Montana Telemedicine Network on behalf of the Sidney Health Center, Glendive Medical Center, Colstrip Medical Center, and the Eastern Montana Community Mental Health Center IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Pub. L.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99342.doc
  • above-captioned request for review IS EXTENDED BY sixty days from the original ninety day deadline. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). 99-342 99-342 Ø Ù ÷ ø Ó ò Ó ò
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000015.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000015.txt
  • between July 10, 1997 and January 30, 1998, Brimfield was required to seek competitive bids for all services eligible for support for Funding Year 2. Because Brimfield did not seek competitive bids for Funding Year 2, we find that the SLD correctly denied Brimfield's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the September 24, 1999 Letter of Appeal filed by Brimfield School District #309, Brimfield, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000016.doc
  • decision. In order to timely appeal the August 3, 1999 decision letter, Madison was required to have filed its appeal by September 2, 1999. Because Madison filed its Letter of Appeal with the Administrator outside of the specified 30-day period, we deny its request for review here. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed October 1, 1999, by Madison School District No. 321, Rexburg, Idaho, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Services Administrative Company, to Brent W. Orr, Madison School District No. 321,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000017.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000017.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 27, 1999 by the Mark Twain Union Elementary School District on September 27, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -17
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000018.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000018.txt
  • SLD cannot determine the appropriate level of discount funding to which Ozarks may be entitled. Because Ozarks has failed to provide the requested information, no portion of its request for discounts on teleconferencing services may be funded. Therefore, we find that the Administrator correctly denied Ozarks' request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ozarks Unlimited Resources Cooperative on behalf of the Greenbrier School District on April 12, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R.Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000019.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000019.txt
  • showing that it was timely filed. In light of these circumstances, we conclude that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ozarks must be denied, since there is no evidence that the FCC Form 471 in question was, in fact, filed with SLD within the filing window. 4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ozarks Unlimited Resources Cooperative on behalf of Yellville-Summit School District, dated September 29, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000020.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000020.txt
  • completing its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. We, therefore, conclude that SLD correctly calculated the funding commitment decision for funding request number 151098 based on the $557.76 estimated monthly pre-discount cost as reported by Intermediate Unit #19 on its FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal by Scranton School District, Scranton, Pennsylvania on behalf of Intermediate Unit #19 Consortium, Archbald, Pennsylvania IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000041.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000041.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by Butts County Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -41
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000042.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000042.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 1999 by the Denison Independent School District IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau 99-#### -42 8¨È
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000084.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000084.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 4, 1999 by the North Central Area Schools IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000085.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000085.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss River Road ISD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on River Road ISD's initial appeal, River Road ISD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by River Road Independent School District of Amarillo, Texas, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Kathy Hicks, Technology Coordinator, River Road Independent School District, to Office of the Secretary,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000105.doc
  • to January 30, 1998, the date upon which the SLD web site became operational. Thus, the tariffed services in question were not subject to ``pre-existing contracts,'' and SLD properly denied Ruidoso's funding requests for those tariffed services for failure to comply with the 28-day competitive bidding requirement. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Ruidoso Municipal School District, Ruidoso, New Mexico on May 6, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lawrence E. Strickling Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, from Paul Wirth, Director of Instructional Support, Ruidoso Municipal School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000174.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 22, 1999 by Bradford Community Unit School District #1 on October 22, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau YY-#### -174
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000175.doc
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator. Therefore, we dismiss Frazier's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Frazier's initial appeal, Frazier may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Frazier School District, Perryopolis, Pennsylvania, on October 26, 1999, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Frederick Smeigh, Frazier School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 26, 1999 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000176.doc
  • appeals pending before the Administrator. Therefore, we dismiss Appellants' Joint Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Appellants' individual appeals, Appellants may then appeal to the Commission if they believe such appeal is warranted at that time. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Joint Letter of Appeal filed by Hartshorne Independent School District 1, Hartshorne, Oklahoma, Swink School District 21, Swink, Oklahoma, and Tyrone Independent School District 53, Tyrone, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Jane
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000177.doc
  • is not a basis to grant relief that would be contrary to our rules. Applicants themselves have the burden of complying with applicable statutes and rules. Here, it was incumbent upon McAllen to be aware of and comply with the Commission's rules regarding the competitive bidding requirement. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by McAllen Independent School District, McAllen, Texas on October 12, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000200.doc
  • to date, Providence will receive the benefit of an estimated $53,000 from the universal service support mechanism for rural health care providers. Because RHCD, as indicated above, has taken steps to favorably resolve the matter that is at issue before us, we dismiss Providence's appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by the Providence Seward Medical Center IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim Sefton, Supervisor, Providence Seward Medical Center to Federal Communications Commission, dated September 27, 1999 (Providence Letter). Pub. L. No.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000287.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000287.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified thirty (30) day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 17, 1999 by Binas Yisaschor IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -287 JI
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000288.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000288.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 23, 1999, by Reedsville School District, Reedsville, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -288 JI JI
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000289.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000289.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 16, 1999 by Stanton Public Library IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -289 JI JI
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000329.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000329.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 22, 1999, by McMinnville SDA Elementary School, McMinnville, Oregon, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -329
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000330.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000330.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 12, 1999, by LaSalle Academy, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -330
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000331.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 16, 1999, by Rio Grande School, Santa Fe, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -331
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000332.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000332.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 1, 1999, by Southwest Dubois County School Corporation, Huntingburg, Indiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -332
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000382.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000382.txt
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 26, 1999, by the Alamo Heights Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -382 þÿÿÿ
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000424.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000424.txt
  • has appeals pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Holcomb SD's Letter of Appeals to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decisions on Holcomb SD's appeal, Holcomb SD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed on December 6, 1999, and December 13, 1999, by Holcomb Unified School District, Holcomb, Kansas, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letters of Appeal of Randy Ackerman, Holcomb Unified School District, to Office
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000425.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000425.txt
  • Kasson-Mantorville has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Kasson-Mantorville's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Kasson-Mantorville's initial appeal, Kasson-Mantorville may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on January 10, 2000 by Kasson-Mantorville Schools, Kasson, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of James Turner, Kasson-Mantorville Schools, to Federal Communications Commission (filed January 10, 2000). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000426.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000426.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Sacred Heart School's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sacred Heart School's initial appeal, Sacred Heart School may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on November 26, 1999 by Sacred Heart School, Mount Holly, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Ronald J. Maniglia, Principal, Sacred Heart School, to Office of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000427.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000427.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss McFarland SD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on McFarland SD's initial appeal, McFarland SD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on January 11, 2000 by School District of McFarland, McFarland, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Scott R. Brown, Director of Business Service, McFarland School District, to Office
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000428.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000428.txt
  • before the Administrator, we dismiss Spring Cove SD's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Spring Cove SD's appeal, Spring Cove SD may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on December 9, 1999 by Spring Cove School District of Roaring Spring, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Attorney, to Federal Communications Commission (filed December 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000497.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000497.txt
  • case, because Albany has appeals pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Albany's Letters of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Albany's appeals, Albany may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeals are warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed on December 9, 1999, and January 14, 1999, by City School District of Albany, Albany, New York, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letters of Appeal of Lonnie E. Palmer, City School District
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000528.doc
  • the limited exceptions for existing contracts under section 54.604(a) of the Commission's rules. Because Northern Arizona signed the contract with US WEST within the 28-day posting period, we conclude that Northern Arizona failed to satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding rules, and RHCD properly denied Northern Arizona's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on November 24, 1999 by Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, from Catherine P. Romeo-Wolff, Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000529.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000529.txt
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 30, 1999, by Newman Grove Public Schools, Newman Grove, Nebraska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -529
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000530.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000530.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss South Western's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on South Western's initial appeal, South Western may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on November 16, 1999 by South Western School District, Hanover, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Dr. Barbara Rupp, Superintendent, to Office of the Secretary, FCC (filed November
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000560.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000560.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Union County's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Union County's appeal, Union County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on November 1, 1999 by Union County Public Schools, Morganfield, Kentucky, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Michael S. Pruitt, District Technology Coordinator, to Office of the Secretary, FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000610.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Bemidji, Bemidji, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -610
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000611.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Detroit Lakes, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -611
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000612.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Hillsboro, Hillsboro, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -612
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000613.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Jamestown, Jamestown, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -613
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000614.doc
  • of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 10, 2000, by the MeritCare Clinic Mayville, Mayville, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -614
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000625.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000625.txt
  • to provide a fair and uniform period applicable to all schools and libraries seeking discounts for eligible services to permit competitive bidding by all potential bidders for those services. Currituck has not presented any arguments or unique circumstances that would warrant granting a waiver of this rule. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on July 2, 1999, by Currituck County Schools, Currituck, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jesse Stallings, Currituck County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2, 1999 (Letter of Appeal). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000732.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000732.txt
  • Lamont has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lamont's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lamont's initial appeal, Lamont may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lamont School District, Lamont, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dave Beckman, Lamont School District, to Federal Communications Commission (filed January 6, 2000) (Letter of Appeal). See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000761.doc
  • the 30-day filing deadline would cause it hardship because it will not receive its requested discounts for Internet access and telecommunications services. We find that Amelia has not demonstrated special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the 30-day filing requirement, and, therefore, Amelia's waiver request is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Amelia County Public Schools, Amelia, Virginia, on November 24, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Janet H. Ashman, Amelia County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 24, 1999. Letter from Universal Service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000762.doc
  • asking us to review a decision of the Administrator. The appeals process was established as the method by which applicants could seek review of an Administrator decision and West County has provided no basis for us to depart from that process. West County's appeal, therefore, is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by West County School District R-IV, Leadwood, Missouri, on January 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ron Yarbro, West County School District R-IV, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 7, 2000 (January
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000837.doc
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Dennehotso Boarding's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Dennehotso Boarding's initial appeal, Dennehotso Boarding may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Dennehotso Boarding School, Dennehotso, Arizona, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Velma D. Eisenberger, Principal, United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000838.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 28, 2000, by Elk Grove Village Public Library, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -838
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000841.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000841.txt
  • Commission, filed January 14, 2000; Letter from James Konantz, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 18, 2000. Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(a). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -841 00-841 E J K E E
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000851.doc
  • issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 1, 1999, by Highland Community School District of Ainsworth - Riverside, Riverside, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ##-#### -851
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000852.doc
  • October 5 funding commitment decision letters, relating to application numbers 142293, 123302, and 124574. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Vancouver's initial appeal with respect to these issues, Vancouver may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed January 28, 2000, by Vancouver Public Schools, Vancouver, Washington, with respect to the funding commitment letter regarding application number 119796, IS DENIED. FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001027.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001027.txt
  • 2, 2000; and Letter from Holly Lee and Dagobert Azam, RALLS Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 12, 2000. Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(a). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1027 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1027 I N O I I
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001042.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001042.txt
  • considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Archbishop Quigley's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Archbishop Quigley's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate Priority One services requested by Archbishop Quigley. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary, Chicago, Illinois, on April 1, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Quirk,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001043.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001043.txt
  • Two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Atlanta's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Atlanta's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate Priority One services request by Atlanta. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Atlanta C-3 School District, Atlanta, Missouri, on May 18, 1999, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Nuhn,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001044.txt
  • considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Bonner Springs' application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Bonner Springs' FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate Priority One services requested by Bonner Springs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bonner Springs Unified School District #204, Bonner Springs, Kansas on July 2, 1999 IS GRANTED to the extent described herein and is otherwise DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001045.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001045.txt
  • signed until March 31, 1999, two days after Cochrane's allowable contract date. In submitting its FCC Form 470 for posting on the SLD website, as well as complying with the 28-day waiting period, Cochrane adhered to all applicable requirements with respect to the Commission's competitive bidding policy. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Cochrane-Fountain City School District, Fountain City, Wisconsin on October 12, 1999 IS GRANTED and that Cochrane's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Mieden,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001046.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001046.txt
  • in the original file to support the correct item, [it] would grant the appeal.'' Accordingly, based on SLD's discovery of the reference to the second, posted Form 470 in Methacton's Form 471, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand this matter to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Methacton School District, Norristown, Pennsylvania, on October 22, 1999 IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert F. Holly, Methacton School District, to Secretary, FCC, dated October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001057.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001057.txt
  • Regional High School, on behalf of Algonquin Regional High School and Northboro Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 14, 2000. Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(a). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -1057 Federal Communications Commission a f g a a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001058.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001058.txt
  • with the support requested, assuming twelve months of service, and does not include other factors, such as the length of the contract for which support is requested. Because SLD correctly determined the funding commitment based on the materials submitted by Call-A-Teen, Call-A-Teen's request for review is denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2000, by Arizona Call-A-Teen Center, Phoenix, Arizona, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ralph Weinberg, Arizona Call-A-Teen Center, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed February 14, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001059.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001059.txt
  • before the Administrator, we dismiss Central Intermediate's Letter of Appeal regarding Application Number 138244 to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on this appeal, Central Intermediate may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2999, by Central Intermediate Unit 10, West Decatur, Pennsylvania, as it relates to Application Number 108215, IS DISMISSED as untimely. FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001131.doc
  • 1998). For this reason, we also reject the argument that the reference to November 1, 1998, in the attachments, reflects the date that PHS selected the carrier. Consequently, we conclude that PHS violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules, and that RHCD properly denied the PHS applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on December 17, 1999 by Presbyterian Healthcare Services on behalf of Espanola Hospital, Lincoln County Medical Center, PRMG - Clovis, Moreno Valley clinic, Socorro General Hospital, Dan C. Trigg Hospital, and Artesia General Hospital IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001187.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001187.txt
  • Carrier Bureau Letter from Leonard A. Gereau, Franklin County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -1187 00-1187 0 5 6 Í Î / 0 6 È trrppprr / 0 È
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001233.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001233.txt
  • party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Flora failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Flora's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Flora Community School District 35, Flora, Illinois, on March 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gerald Klein, Flora Community School District 35, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 6, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001277.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001277.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Blessed Sacrament's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Blessed Sacrament's appeal, Blessed Sacrament may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 17, 2000, by Blessed Sacrament School, Washington, DC, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Walsh, Blessed Sacrament School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001278.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001278.txt
  • to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Brevard County's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 8, 2000, by Brevard County School District, Viera, Florida, IS DISMISSED, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001279.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 29, 2000, by Calallen Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William C. Ball, Calallen Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001280.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001280.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 23, 2000, by Casa Grande Union High School District, Casa Grande, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Steven R. DiMuzio, Casa Grande
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001281.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001281.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 27, 2000, by Covina-Valley Unified School District, Covina, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ray Harder, Covina-Valley Unified School District, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001282.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001282.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 28, 2000, by the Enlarged City School District of Troy, Troy, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Armand J. Reo,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001283.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001283.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 1, 2000, by Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School District No. 775, Kerkhoven, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kim Hippen, Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Independent School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001284.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001284.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 14, 1999, by Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jenny Ettenheim, Milwaukee Jewish Day School, dated September
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001285.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001285.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss North Chicago's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on North Chicago's initial appeal, North Chicago may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tyrone Pipkin, North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 5,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001365.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001365.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 22, 2000, by Austin Public Library, Austin, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bob Gaines, Central Texas Library System,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001366.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001366.txt
  • Because B. F. Jones filed an appeal of the August 9, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we grant the instant Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to consider B. F. Jones' request for review of SLD's decision to deny FRN 170032. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by B. F. Jones Memorial Library, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and B.F. Jones' request for discounts for internal connections, FRN 170032, is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Elizabeth
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001367.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001367.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 7, 2000, by Des Moines Independent School District, Des Moines, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ron Meyers, Des Moines
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001369.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001369.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 7, 2000, by Gridley Unified School District, Gridley, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sally Mitchell, Gridley Unified School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001370.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001370.txt
  • party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Madison failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Madison's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Madison District Schools, Madison Heights, Michigan, on March 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jackie Keene, Madison District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 15, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001371.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 5, 2000, by Nicolet Distance Education Network, Rhinelander, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Penny Kuckkahn, Nicolet Distance Education Network,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001372.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001372.txt
  • a party affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Pinellas failed to file appeals of the Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decisions to dismiss Pinellas' appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Pinellas County Schools, Largo, Florida on March 10, 2000, and March 13, 2000, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Norman Kelton, Pinellas County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001373.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001373.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Queen of Peace failed to file an appeal of the November 16, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Queen of Peace's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Queen of Peace High School, Burbank, Illinois on March 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Irene Halko, Queen of Peace High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001374.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001374.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Red Wing failed to file an appeal of the August 3, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Red Wing's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by El Monte Union High School DistrictRed Wing Public Schools, Red Wing, Minnesota on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kathryn C. Leitz, Independent School District No. 256El
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001375.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001375.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by St. Cecilia School, Ames, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bryan Bradley, St. Cecilia School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001376.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001376.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by St. Paul's School, Wilmington, Delaware, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Karen Bolte, St. Paul School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001377.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001377.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2000, by Algonquin Regional High School, Northboro, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lincoln D. Lynch, III, Algonquin Regional
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001378.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001378.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Michael's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Michael's appeal, St. Michael may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Michael School, Brooklyn, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Margaret Ford, St. Michael School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 24, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001380.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001380.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 30, 2000, Talmud Torah Siach Yitzchok, Far Rockaway, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Moshe D. Goodman, Talmud
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001510.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001510.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Battle Lake failed to file an appeal of the August 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Battle Lake's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Battle Lake School, Battle Lake, Minnesota on April 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rick Bleichner, Battle Lake School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001511.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001511.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Dearborn failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Dearborn's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Dearborn Public Schools, Dearborn, Michigan on April 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Janeen Sharpe, Dearborn Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001512.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001512.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Minneapolis failed to file an appeal of the November 16, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Minneapolis' request to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Minneapolis School District 1, Minneapolis, Minnesota on March 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel T. Cincoski, Armstrong, Torseth, Skold & Rydeen, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001513.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001513.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Our Lady failed to file an appeal of the September 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Our Lady's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Our Lady Help of Christians Parish School, Allentown, Pennsylvania on April 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Charlene Verbetich, Our Lady Help of Christians Parish School, Allentown,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001514.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001514.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Oxford Hills failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Oxford Hills' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Oxford Hills School District M.S.A.D #17, Oxford, Maine on April 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mark Eastman, Oxford Hills School District M.S.A.D. #17, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001515.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001515.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 11, 2000, by Wathena Unified School District 406, Wathena, Kansas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leslie Rullman, Wathena Unified School District 406, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001516.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001516.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because York County failed to file an appeal of the August 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss York County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by York County Public Library, Yorktown, Virginia on April 14, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kevin Smith, York County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001517.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001517.txt
  • be permitted to amend completed Form 471s to remove ineligible service requests after the closure of the filing window deadline. If applicants were permitted to make such corrections, SLD would face significant additional administrative burdens. Therefore, we cannot permit Ubly to amend its FCC Form 471. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 28, 2000, by Ubly Community Schools, Ubly, Michigan, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Evelyn Smaglinsli, Ubly Community Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). See Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001546.doc
  • decision regarding FRN 232503 may have dealt with matters that were not addressed in the instant appeal to the Commission, Eastland may request review of the March 27, 2000 denial of Eastland's request for reconsideration of FRN 232503 within 30 days of the release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91., 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 3, 2000, by Eastland Independent School District, Eastland, Texas, IS DENIED with respect to Funding Request Numbers 232501 and 232509. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Letter of Appeal filed February 3, 2000, by Eastland Independent School District, Eastland, Texas, as it
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001547.doc
  • SLD. Because the Administrator's decision may have dealt with matters that were not addressed in the instant appeal to the Commission, Los Angeles may request review of the June 15, 2000 denial of Los Angeles's request for reconsideration within 30 days of the release of this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James Konantz, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 18,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001563.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001563.txt
  • for either of the limited exceptions for existing contracts under section 54.604(a) of the Commission's rules. Thus, we also conclude that RHCD properly refused to approve Good Samaritan's request for support from the first day of the funding year (January 1, 1998) based upon an existing contract. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed on March 8, 2000 by the Good Samaritan Health Systems Foundation of Kearney, Nebraska on behalf of the following four consortium members of the Mid-Nebraska Telemedicine Network: Cozad Community Hospital, Callaway District Hospital, Jennie M. Melham Memorial Medical Center, and Cambridge Memorial Hospital, IS DENIED.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001612.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001612.txt
  • for the services requested in the FCC Form 470. By completing and signing the FCC Form 471 before the waiting period expired, Minor indicated that it had ceased consideration of competitive bids, thereby undermining the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. The Bureau, therefore, denies Minor's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 21, 2000, by Minor High School, Adamsville, Alabama, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Van Phillips, Minor High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 21, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001620.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001620.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed March 22, 2000, by Carle Place School District, Carle Place, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce Ettenberg, Carle
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001621.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001621.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Cerebral Palsy failed to file an appeal of the November 23, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Cerebral Palsy's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Cerebral Palsy Center School, Belleville, New Jersey on March 2, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rose Kline, Cerebral Palsy Center School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 2,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001622.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001622.txt
  • Carrier Bureau Letter from Leonard A. Gereau, Franklin County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -1622 00-1622 - œ � - -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001624.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001624.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2000, by Northboro Public Schools, Northboro, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lincoln D. Lynch, III, Northboro Public Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001718.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001718.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Carmichaels Area School District, Carmichaels, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Vincent M. Belczyk, Carmichaels
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001719.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001719.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 24, 2000, by Caroline County School District, Bowling Green, Virginia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative, Co., to Clota D. Gerhardt, Jr.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001720.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001720.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Carteret Public Schools, Carteret, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert J. Eckert, Carteret
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001721.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001721.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 18, 2000, by City of Boston, Department of Neighborhood Development, Boston, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Deborah
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001722.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001722.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 8, 2000, by Columbia Borough School District, Columbia, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Laura E. McGill, Columbia Borough School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001723.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001723.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Homer-Center School District, Homer City, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Beverly N. Bettinazzi, Homer
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001724.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001724.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Lakeville School District, Lakeville, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lonnie Smith, Lakeville School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001725.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001725.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Learning Community Charter School, Jersey City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webebr Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Caryn Rogoff,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001726.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001726.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ringwood failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ringwood's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ringwood Public Schools, Mercer, Oklahoma on April 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Walker, Ringwood Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 7, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001727.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001727.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 16, 2000, by Roxbury Library Association, Roxbury, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Eugene F. Beirne, Roxbury
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001728.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001728.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 23, 2000, by Savanna Elementary School, Savanna, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Angelia Wilson, Savanna Elementary School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001729.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001729.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Seattle Hebrew Academy, Seattle, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Marc Maislen, Seattle Hebrew Academy,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001730.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001730.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by St. Anthony of Padua Catholic School, Greenville, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sister
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001731.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001731.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Vernon Parish's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Vernon Parish's appeal, Vernon Parish may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 25, 2000, by Vernon Parish School Board, Leesville, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Don Gallemore, Vernon Parish School Board, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001732.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001732.txt
  • on information that could have been provided by the applicant at the time the application was filed. We conclude that, on the basis of the forms and supporting documents submitted by Metropolitan, SLD properly denied Metropolitan's request for a Y2K upgrade. The Bureau, therefore, denies Metropolitan's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Metropolitan School District of Pike Township, Indianapolis, Indiana, on November 9, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Koch, Metropolitan School District of Pike Township, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001733.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001733.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Orchard View's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Orchard View's appeal, Orchard View may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 2, 2000 by Orchard View Schools, Muskegon, Michigan, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dr. Shari Peters-Kitchen, Orchard View Schools, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001734.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001734.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Patton failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Patton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by General George S. Patton School District 133, Riverdale, Illinois on May 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Essie M. Harris, General George S. Patton School District 133, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001819.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001819.txt
  • requests for waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted the need for a waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the Commission's rules or SLD's procedures. Because Guadalupe offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies Guadalupe's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 23, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Our Lady of Guadalupe School, Houston, Texas, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Christina Skowronek, Our Lady of Guadalupe School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001820.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001820.txt
  • waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted the need for a waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the Commission's rules or SLD's procedures. Because St. Pius offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies St. Pius's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the March 29, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by St. Pius X High School, Kansas City, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from L. Michael Smithmier, St. Pius X High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001821.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001821.txt
  • requests for waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted the need for a waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the Commission's rules or SLD's procedures. Because Wilmington offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies Wilmington's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 14, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Wilmington CUSD #209-U, Wilmington, Illinois, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Phifer, Wilmington CUSD #209-U, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001822.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001822.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Children's Home of Burlington County, Newtown, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ronald MacClay, Children's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001823.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001823.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Kerman Unified School District, Kerman, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Teixeira, Kerman Unified
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001856.doc
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Hayward Unified's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Hayward Unified's initial appeal, Hayward Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 2, 2000 by Hayward Unified School District, Hayward, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from James Ogami, Hayward Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001857.doc
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Huron's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Huron City School District, Huron, Ohio, on May 24, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donald Pflieger, Huron City Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 24, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001858.doc
  • appeals pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lake County's Letters of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lake County's initial appeals, Lake County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 4, 2000 by Lake County Schools, Hayward, Florida, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from David Coggshall, Lake County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, Application
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001859.doc
  • before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Maple Valley's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Maple Valley Public School District #4, Tower City, North Dakota, on April 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ron Stahlecker, Maple Valley Public School District #4, to the Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001860.doc
  • SLD issued a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter that granted Orleans/Niagara's funding requests at its requested discount level. Because the Division finds that the errors asserted by Orleans/Niagara in its Letter of Appeal have been corrected by SLD, the Division dismisses Orleans/Niagara's Letter of Appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Orleans/Niagara Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Medina, New York, on November 12, 1999 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clark J. Godshall, Orleans/Niagara Board of Cooperative Educational Services, to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001861.doc
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Wayne's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Wayne Community Schools, Corydon, Iowa, on May, 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Mason, Wayne Community Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 18, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001886.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001886.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Medford's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Medford Township Board of Education, Medford, New Jersey, on May 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Medford Township Board of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001887.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001887.txt
  • administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Merced Union's unfamiliarity or misunderstanding of Commission policies provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.201, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Merced Union High School District, Merced, California on April 6, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry Silva, Merced Union High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 6, 1999 (Letter of Appeal). 47 U.S.C.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001888.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001888.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Metuchen's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Metuchen School District, Metuchen, New Jersey, on May 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Metuchen School District), to the Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001890.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001890.txt
  • before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies New Prague's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by New Prague School District No. 721, New Prague, Minnesota, on May 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tim Rybak, New Prague School District No. 721, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001891.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001891.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Whiting failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Whiting's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by School City of Whiting, Whiting, Indiana on April 13, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sandra Martinez, School City of Whiting, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001892.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001892.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Whitehall City failed to file an appeal of the September 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Whitehall City's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Whitehall City School District, Whitehall, Ohio on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph R. Schiska, Whitehall City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001909.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001909.txt
  • Council Bluffs' failure to file its application within the Year 1 filing window, the Bureau believes that a waiver of the filing window deadline is warranted. Under these circumstances, we remand Council Bluffs' application to SLD for processing and the issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Council Bluffs Community Schools, Council Bluffs, Iowa, on March 9, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Council Bluffs' application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Yog R. Varma Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001910.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001910.txt
  • appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal with respect to those four Funding Commitment Decision Letters. We dismiss as moot Rockdale Independent's Letter of Appeal to the extent it addresses the funding commitment decision (SLD-146830) that SLD resolved in Rockdale Independent's favor. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Rockdale Independent School District, Rockdale, Texas on April 24, 2000, IS DENIED, with respect to SLD-139132, SLD-139138, SLD-152287, SLD-146833, and IS DISMISSED, with respect to SLD-146830. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001918.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 24, 2000, by Community Consolidated School District 93, Carol Stream, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Dart, Community
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001919.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 7, 2000, by Milton Public Library, Milton, Vermont, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Fran Ferro, Milton Public Library,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001923.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001923.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 15, 2000, by Bethlehem Central School District, Delmar, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to McDonald Carlton, Bethlehem
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001924.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001924.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 8, 2000, by Bishop Hannan High School, Scranton, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Christine Anne Royce, Bishop
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001925.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001925.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Catoosa's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 12, 2000, by Catoosa Public Schools, Catoosa, Oklahoma, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001926.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001926.txt
  • the Administrator. Because De Valls Bluff failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss De Valls Bluff's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by De Valls Bluff School District, De Valls Bluff, Arizona on June 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Betty Medford, De Valls Bluff School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001927.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001927.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Duluth failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Duluth's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Duluth School District 709, Duluth, Minnesota on June 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Wayne V. Aune, Duluth School District 709, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001928.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001928.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 9, 2000, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001929.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001929.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Fairfield Township failed to file an appeal of the September 14, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Fairfield Township's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Fairfield Township Public Schools, Bridgeton, New Jersey on April 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pamela A. Gatto, Fairfield Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001930.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001930.txt
  • Because Folsom Cordova failed to file an appeal of the October 5, 1999 and October 12, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Folsom Cordova's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Folsom Cordova Unified School District, Folsom, California on May 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kelly J. Calhoun, Folsom Cordova Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001931.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001931.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 5, 2000, by Franklin Lakes Public Schools, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Edward Sullivan,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001932.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001932.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 30, 2000, Granville Village School, Granville, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Petit, Granville Village School, dated March
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001933.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001933.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 19, 2000, by Oskaloosa School for Christian Instruction, Oskaloosa, Iowa, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Ron Halma, Oskaloosa School for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001934.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001934.txt
  • applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Our Lady of Grace's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 17, 2000, by Our Lady of Grace School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001935.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001935.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 23, 2000, by Paradise Unified School District, Paradise, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Midge Kenyon, Paradise Unified
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001936.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001936.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Racine failed to file an appeal of the August 17, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Racine's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Racine Unified School District, Racine, Wisconsin on May 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael S. Dingman, Racine Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001937.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001937.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Rockwell-Swaledale failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Rockwell-Swaledale's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Rockwell-Swaledale Community School District, Rockwell, Iowa on June 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Foell, Rockwell-Swaledale Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001938.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001938.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 6, 2000, by Sault Ste. Marie Area Public Schools, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Steve R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001939.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001939.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Smithtown failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Smithtown's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by The Smithtown Library, Smithtown, New York, on June 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Peter Ward, The Smithtown Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001940.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001940.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Solon Springs failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Solon Springs' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Solon Springs School District, Ashland, Wisconsin on June 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David W. Johnson, Solon Springs School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001941.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001941.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Springfield failed to file an appeal of the August 3, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Springfield's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, Massachusetts on April 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Peter J. Negroni, Springfield Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001942.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001942.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Warren County failed to file an appeal of the August 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Warren County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Warren County Vocational School District, Washington, New Jersey on May 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John H. Bolil, Warren County Technical School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002010.doc
  • period after the issuance of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on May 14, 2000, a holiday, Gulfport's May 15, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Gulfport's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Gulfport's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Gulfport School District, Gulfport, Mississippi on June 5, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Weber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terri Burnham, Gulfport School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 5, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002043.doc
  • district. We conclude, however, that these factors should not have precluded Ann Arbor from filing a timely appeal and, accordingly, that Ann Arbor has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Ann Arbor's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 4, 2000, by Ann Arbor Public Schools, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002044.txt
  • as a timely appeal of SLD's letter informing Dolton that its request for telecommunications services did not meet minimum processing standards. Accordingly, we grant Dolton's request for review. We direct SLD to review Dolton's appeal regarding the decision to deny Dolton's request for funding for telecommunications services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Dolton School District 148, Riverdale, Illinois, on March 17, 2000, IS GRANTED as provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Administrator IS DIRECTED to implement the decision herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002046.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002046.txt
  • not post Jenks' request for services to SLD's website. The contract for which Jenks seeks support, however, did not meet either of the limited exceptions for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Jenks' request for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 2, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Jenks Public Schools, Jenks, Oklahoma, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joyce S. Friske, Jenks Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 2, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002047.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002047.txt
  • enforcing its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the advice provided by the employee, particularly when the relief requested would be contrary to an applicable statute or rule. Because Richmond offers no further basis for considering its request, the Bureau denies Richmond's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 4, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Richmond County Public Schools, Hamlet, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Suzanne W. Griffin, Richmond County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 4, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002049.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002049.txt
  • the $4,250 monthly charge labeled as ``recurring costs'' was for hardware costs alone. Because SLD incorrectly determined that the funding request from Franklin County was for ineligible services or products, Franklin County's request for review is granted, and SLD is directed to reconsider Franklin County's funding request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed February 25, 2000, by Franklin County Public Schools, Rocky Mount, Virginia, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Leonard A. Gereau, Superintendent, Franklin County Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 25, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002071.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002071.txt
  • of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding the Commission's rules and procedures and carefully and accurately completing the relevant FCC Forms. The Division, therefore, denies the Hawaii Schools' Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the above-captioned appeals filed by Aikahi Elementary School, Kailua, Hawaii, Enchanted Lake Elementary School, Kailua, Hawaii, Kane'ohe Elementary School, Kaneohe, Hawaii, Keolu Elementary School, Kailua, Hawaii, Niu Valley Intermediate School, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Waikiki Elementary School, Honolulu, Hawaii, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002072.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002072.txt
  • denied requests for waiver of its competitive bidding requirements when the applicant asserted a need for waiver based on its own error or misunderstanding of the schools and libraries program's rules. Because Anderson offers no further basis for considering its request, the Division denies Anderson's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 28, 2000, Request for Review filed by Anderson Community School Corporation, Anderson, Indiana, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Anderson Community School Corporation of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, CC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002073.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002073.txt
  • issuance of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 4, 2000, a holiday, Corpus Christi's June 5, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Corpus Christi's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Corpus Christi's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Corpus Christi Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas on June 16, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Susan R. Utter, Corpus Christi Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002074.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002074.txt
  • Educational Service bears the burden of carefully reviewing items sent to and received from SLD for errors. Accordingly, we conclude that Educational Service has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Educational Service's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 7, 2000, by Educational Service Unit #6, Milford, Nebraska, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002075.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002075.txt
  • before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Iowa City's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Iowa City Community School District, Iowa City, Iowa, on May 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lane Plugge, Iowa City Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002076.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002076.txt
  • after the issuance of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 11, 2000, a holiday, Newton's June 12, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Newton County's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Newton's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Newton County School District, Decatur, Mississippi on June 27, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bob Strebeck, Newton County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002084.doc
  • initial FCC Form 471 supports Cordova's assertion that its application bore an original signature, the Bureau concludes that SLD erroneously rejected Cordova's application. The Bureau, therefore, grants Cordova's request for review and instructs SLD to process Cordova's application according to its original April 13, 1998 filing date. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Cordova Public Schools, Cordova, Alaska, on March 6, 2000, IS GRANTED and that Cordova's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from LeRoy Key,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002085.doc
  • the requests included support for ineligible entities. Because SLD's denial of Washington DIS's funding requests resulted from SLD's failure to make the requested corrections to Washington DIS's FCC Form 471, the Bureau grants Washington DIS's Request for Review and remands its application to SLD for further processing. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the State of Washington Department of Information Services on June 13, 2000, IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002097.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 17, 2000, by Penns Grove Carneys Point Regional School District, Penns Grove, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002098.doc
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Vernon Parish's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Vernon Parish's initial appeal, Vernon Parish may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 12, 2000 by Vernon Parish School District, Leesville, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Don S. Gallemore, Vernon Parish School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002181.doc
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Carbondale failed to file an appeal of the April 27, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Carbondale's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carbondale Public Library, Carbondale, Pennsylvania on May 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne Muldoon, Carbondale Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 4, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002182.doc
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Coffee County failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Coffee County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Coffee County Board of Education, Elba, Alabama on June 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rodger Bowden and Golda Donaldson, Coffee County Board of Education, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002183.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 11, 2000, by Spartanburg County School District 6, Spartanburg, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Dr. Robert
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002188.doc
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 19, 2000, by Utica Community Schools, Sterling Heights, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Sharon Petty, Utica Community Schools, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002264.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002264.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Carl Schurz failed to file an appeal of the August 17, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Carl Schurz's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School, Chicago, Illinois on April 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002265.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002265.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 23, 2000, by Central Agency for Jewish Education, Miami, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathie Yuz, Central
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002266.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002266.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 5, 2000, by Clifton Independent School District, Clifton, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Brenda Vrazel, Clifton Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002267.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002267.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colonial failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colonial's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colonial School District, East Concord, New York on June 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R. F. Thompson, Thompson Communications Company, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002268.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002268.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Eastern Plains failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Eastern Plains' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico on July 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Becky Rowley, Clovis community College, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002269.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002269.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Garden Grove failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Garden Grove's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Garden Grove Unified School District, Garden Grove, California on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cung Nguyen, Garden Grove Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002270.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002270.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Judge Memorial Catholic High School, Salt Lake City, Utah, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jane
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002271.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002271.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Kanawha County failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Kanawha County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Kanawha County School District, Charleston, West Virginia on June 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Patrick Law, Kanawha County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002272.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002272.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 18, 2000, by Marion School District 54, Marion, Montana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Ron Osborne, Marion School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002273.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002273.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Newburgh failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Newburgh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laval S. Wilson, Newburgh Enlarged City School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002274.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002274.txt
  • Administrator. Because New Castle cannot show that it filed a timely appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Castle's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Castle Community Schools, New Castle, Indiana on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Larry Koby, New Castle Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002275.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002275.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Oscoda failed to file an appeal of the December 1, 1998 and February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Oscoda's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Oscoda Area Schools, Oscoda, Michigan on May 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from W.C. Bill Martin, Oscoda Area Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002276.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002276.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 2, 2000, by Pace School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kai S. Hoke, Pace School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002277.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002277.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: October 6, 2000 Released: October 10, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 20, 1999, by Pinckneyville District #50, Pinckneyville, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim O'Leary, Pinckneyville District #50,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002278.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002278.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 28, 2000, by Racine Unified School District of Racine, Wisconsin, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael S. Dingman,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002279.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002279.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Saint Andrew failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Saint Andrew's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Saint Andrew School, Chicago, Illinois on June 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jack Percival, Saint Andrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002280.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002280.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because San Juan failed to file an appeal of the October 19, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss San Juan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by San Juan Unified School District, Carmichael, California on May 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tim McCarty, San Juan Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002281.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002281.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Scotch Plains failed to file appeals of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decisions dismissing Scotch Plains' appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letters of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, Scotch Plains, New Jersey on May 30, 2000, and May 31, 2000, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Donald L. Williams, Scotch Plains-Farnwood Public Schools, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002403.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002403.txt
  • seek discounts.'' Bancroft prematurely filed its FCC Form 471, and should not have requested support for that contracted service until March 9, 1999. Therefore, we find no merit in Bancroft's appeal. Again, for the program to run efficiently, it is critical that applicants follow the Commission's rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on February 9, 2000, by Bancroft-Rosalie Community Schools, Bancroft, Nebraska, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. Jon Cerny, Bancroft Rosalie Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 9, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002496.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002496.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Arvin Brown's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Arvin Brown's initial appeal, Arvin Brown may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on August 8, 2000 by Arvin A. Brown Library, Richford, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Annette Goyne, Arvin A. Brown Library, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002497.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002497.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ballinger failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ballinger's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ballinger I.S.D., Ballinger, Texas on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Laura Strube, Ballinger I.S.D., to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002498.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002498.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Big Rapids failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Big Rapids' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Big Rapids Public Schools, Big Rapids, Michigan on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph A. Bouman, Big Rapids Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002499.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002499.txt
  • by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Caledonia North failed to file an appeal of the Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Caledonia North's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Caledonia North Supervisory Union, Lyndonville, Vermont on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ann Riggie, Caledonia North Supervisory Union, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002500.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002500.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Douglas failed to file an appeal of the February 24, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Douglas' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Douglas Public Library, Douglas, Arizona on July 21, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Glenda Bavier, Douglas Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 21, 1999 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002501.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002501.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: November 7, 2000 Released: November 8, 2000 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed May 19, 2000, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002502.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002502.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Elgin failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Elgin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Elgin Independent School District 16, Elgin, Oklahoma on August 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Doris Wilson, Elgin Independent School District 16, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002503.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002503.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Holy Family failed to file an appeal of the June 6, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Holy Family's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Holy Family School, Sioux City, Iowa on August 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cindy Spenner, Holy Family School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002504.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002504.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the April 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Jefferson County School District, Fayette, Mississippi on July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John E. Dickey, Jefferson County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002505.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002505.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the September 14, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by The Jefferson School, Jefferson, Maryland on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul Thewsuvat, The Jefferson School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002506.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002506.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Granite failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Granite's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Granite School District, Salt Lake City, Utah on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dr. James Henderson, Granite School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002507.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002507.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 10, 2000, by Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, Nebraska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Steinberger, Lexington Public Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002508.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002508.txt
  • issuance of the June 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a weekend, Mt. Diablo's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Mt. Diablo's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Mt. Diablo's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Perry W. Polk, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002509.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002509.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 15, 2000, by Oregon Trail School District, Sandy, Oregon, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Miriam Mann, Oregon Trail
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002510.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002510.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southeastern failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southeastern's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio on August 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert L. Lindsey, Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002511.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002511.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Southwick-Tolland failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Southwick-Tolland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, Southwick, Massachusetts on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul R. Petit, Southwick-Tolland Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002512.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002512.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Anthony failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Anthony's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Anthony School, New York, New York on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tess A. Alviar, St. Anthony School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 21,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002513.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002513.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Rita failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Rita's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Rita School, New Orleans, Louisiana on August 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Annette Baxley, St. Rita School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 15, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002514.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002514.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed August 30, 2000, by Yeshiva Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Green, Yeshiva Schools, dated July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002531.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002531.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Austin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Austin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Austin Public School 492, Austin, Minnesota on July 27, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lori Volz, Austin Public School 492, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 27, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002532.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002532.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 25, 2000, a holiday, Bloomfield's June 26, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Bloomfield's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Bloomfield's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bloomfield Public Library, Bloomfield, Iowa on July 18, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Regina Gooden, Bloomfield Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 18, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002533.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002533.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Cumberland failed to file an appeal of the April 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Cumberland's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Cumberland County School District, Burkesville, Kentucky on July 10, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robin Sharp, Cumberland County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002534.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002534.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Eastern Plains Instructional Television Consortium, Logan, New Mexico, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Joel Pate,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002535.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002535.txt
  • Because Florence Carlton failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 and May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence Carlton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence Carlton School District 15-6, Florence, Montana on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Elaine Huseby, Florence Carlton School District 15-6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002536.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002536.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Florence failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Florence's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Florence City School District, Florence, Alabama on July 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Edison D. Barney, Florence City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 19,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002537.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002537.txt
  • Lincoln has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Lincoln's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Lincoln's initial appeal, Lincoln may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 8, 2000 by Lincoln School District 156, Calumet City, Illinois, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Dr. Kenneth Jandes, Lincoln School District 156, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002538.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002538.txt
  • issuance of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 9, 2000, a holiday, Moon Area's July 10, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Moon Area's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Moon Area's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Moon Area School District, Moon Township, Pennsylvania on July 31, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel H. Vogel, Moon Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002539.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002539.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Attleborough failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Attleborough's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Attleborough School District, North Attleborough, Massachusetts on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland Denault, North Attleborough School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002540.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002540.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gildford failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gildford's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by North Gildford School, Gildford, Montana on June 19, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Stahl, North Gildford School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 19, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002541.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002541.txt
  • the issuance of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on July 30, 2000, a weekend, Roosevelt Elementary's July 31, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Roosevelt Elementary's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Roosevelt's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, Phoenix, Arizona on August 22, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Harris, Roosevelt Elementary School District 66, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002542.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002542.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Simpson County's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Simpson County's initial appeal, Simpson County may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 23, 2000 by Simpson County School District, Mendenhall, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kay Berry, Simpson County School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002543.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002543.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because South Heart failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss South Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by South Heart School, South Heart, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paula Lengowski, South Heart School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002544.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002544.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Peter & Paul failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Peter & Paul's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by SS. Peter & Paul School, Cary, Illinois on July 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sr. Katrina Lamkin, SS. Peter & Paul School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002545.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002545.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Patrick failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Patrick's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by St. Patrick's School, Dickinson, North Dakota on July 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brenda L. Selinger, St. Patrick's School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 5, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002546.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002546.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Swift River failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Swift River's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Swift River Elementary School, New Salem, Massachusetts on July 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol S. Holzberg, Swift River Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002547.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002547.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Vacaville failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Vacaville's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Vacaville Unified School District, Vacaville, California on July 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Terry D. Beckham, Vacaville Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002548.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002548.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because AECSD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss AECSD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Auburn Enlarged City School District, Fairport, New York on July 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Matthew Crider, ECC Technologies, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 17,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002550.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002550.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Colton failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Colton's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colton Joint Unified School District, Upland, California on September 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Kendrick, Colton Joint Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002551.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002551.txt
  • period after the issuance of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on June 11, 2000, a holiday, Durham's May 12, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Durham's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Durham's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Durham Unified School District, Durham, California on July 11, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Christy R. Patterson, Durham Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002552.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002552.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Elko County School District, Elko, Nevada, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William McLeod, Elko County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002553.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002553.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Girard failed to file an appeal of the May 19, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Girard's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Girard City School District, Girard, Ohio on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anthony D. Ambrosio, Girard City School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 24,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002554.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002554.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because McIntosh failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss McIntosh's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by McIntosh County Schools, Darien, Georgia on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Debby Richardson, McIntosh County Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002555.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002555.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 17, 2000, by Northeast Educational Services Cooperative, Hayti, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lawrence L. Furney,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002556.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002556.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Ryan failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Ryan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Ryan Public School, Ryan, Oklahoma on August 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don A. Bogard, Ryan Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 23, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002557.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002557.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed July 11, 2000, by Traverse City Area Public Schools, Traverse City, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary P.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002558.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002558.txt
  • period after the issuance of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 6, 2000, a holiday, Xavier's August 7, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Xavier's Letter of Appeal and direct SLD to review Xavier's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Xavier High School, Cedar Rapids, Iowa on August 29, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Henderson, Xavier High School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002559.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002559.txt
  • the Administrator. Because ESU No. 6 failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ESU No. 6's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Educational Service Unit No. 06, Omaha, Nebraska on August 30, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Ferneding, Educational Service Unit No. 06, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002574.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002574.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Eatonville's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Eatonville School District, Eatonville, Washington, on May 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Raymond F. Arment, III, Eatonville School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002575.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002575.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Delta/Greely failed to file an appeal of the February 28, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Delta/Greely's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Delta/Greely School District, Delta Junction, Alaska on July 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kim Johnson, Delta/Greely School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 22, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002629.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002629.txt
  • to the standards for permissible SPIN changes in the Copan Order, we remand these Letters of Appeal to the Administrator for reconsideration pursuant to the Commission's revised SPIN change policy. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letters of Appeal filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A LIST OF APPEALS REMANDED Application Number Applicant 127441 Baldwin County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002630.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002630.txt
  • program rules and procedures. The program's rules state repeatedly that universal service funds support only eligible services. Anderson should have been aware that it was seeking discounts for ineligible internal connections. We conclude SLD appropriately applied its 30 percent policy based upon the facts of this case. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed May 30, 2000, by Anderson School, Staatsburg, New York, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau In the Matter of Request for Review by Anderson School, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 30, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002631.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002631.txt
  • stated that the lesser quotes were for ``the remaining schools,'' implying that these were separate quotes. Because SLD incorrectly determined that the funding request from Winterset was for ineligible services or products, Winterset's request for review is granted, and SLD is directed to reconsider Winterset's funding request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed April 13, 2000, by Winterset Community School District, Winterset, Iowa, IS GRANTED to the extent stated herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ivan T. Webber, on behalf of Winterset School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002642.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002642.txt
  • an ``inquiry,'' rather than an appeal. Because Houston Independent filed the letter within 30 days of SLD's June 16, 2000, Funding Commitment Decision Letter, it was timely filed. Accordingly, we grant in part Houston Independent's Letters of Appeal and direct SLD to review Houston Independent's initial appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letters of Appeal filed by Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas on August 18, 2000 and August 21, 2000, ARE GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daryl Ann Borel, Houston Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002650.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002650.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bryn Athyn failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bryn Athyn's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Bryn Athyn Church School, Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania on September 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melodie Greer, Bryn Athyn Church School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 28,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002651.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002651.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because EDmin failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss EDmin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by EDmin Open Systems, Inc., San Diego, California on September 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Shorts, EDmin Open Systems, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 26,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002652.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002652.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 8, 2000, by James Ward Elementary School, Chicago, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Kline, James Ward
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002653.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002653.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Madera failed to file an appeal of the July 7, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Madera's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Madera Unified School District, Madera, California on September 25, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Imrie, Madera Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002654.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002654.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 11, 2000, by Norwell Public Schools, Norwell, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard F. Sulc, Norwell Public
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002655.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002655.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Richland Colfax failed to file an appeal of the May 26, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Richland Colfax's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Richland Colfax No. 1, Richland, Nebraska on September 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Judith Kabourek, Richland Colfax No. 1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 6, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002656.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002656.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Rosa failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Rosa's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, Santa Rosa, New Mexico on September 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Daniel Flores, Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002657.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002657.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ynez failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ynez's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District, Santa Ynez, California on September 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Fred Van Leuven, Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002658.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002658.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 28, 2000, by Saint John Bosco High School, Bellflower, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Paul Stover, Saint
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002659.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002659.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed June 23, 2000, by South Brunswick Township School District, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Lester
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002660.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002660.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 2, 2000, by Westbrook High School, Westbrook, Connecticut, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert Vale, Westbrook High School,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002699.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002699.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Northwestern's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on September 15, 2000, by Northwestern School District 56-3, Mellette, South Dakota, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002700.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002700.txt
  • after the issuance of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters fell on August 27, 2000, a holiday, Western Heights' August 28, 2000 appeals should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Western Heights' appeals and direct SLD to review Western Heights' appeals to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Western Heights School District I-41, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on September 28, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Western Heights School District I-41, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002701.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002701.txt
  • contravenes the Commission's policy that applicants shall not be permitted to amend completed FCC Forms 471 to remove ineligible service requests after the closure of the filing window deadline. If applicants were permitted to make such corrections, SLD and the Commission would face significant additional administrative burdens. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 28, 2000 by Free Library of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from H.E. Broadbent, Free Library of Philadelphia, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed, March 28, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002722.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002722.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies YCS' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Youth Consultation Services, Newark, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kathleen M. Bravo, Youth Consultation Service, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 10, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002784.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002784.txt
  • appeal concerning the other application, stating that ``[y]our appeal has been granted because it is not clear who was contacted initially for the missing documentation. . . .'' Because these two decisions based on the same circumstances are inconsistent, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Chichester School District, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania on May 10, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chichester's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002806.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002806.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Caddo Independent School District 5, Caddo, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Caddo's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002807.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002807.txt
  • eligible for support by SLD. Consistent with Terral School District 3, and in the absence of an explanation by SLD of the basis for its decision, we conclude that the record does not support SLD's finding of ineligibility. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Canute Independent School District 11, Canute, Oklahoma, on May 1, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Canute's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002808.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002808.txt
  • of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter fell on August 20, 2000, a holiday, Soille San Diego's August 21, 2000 appeal should have been considered timely filed. Accordingly, we grant Soille San Diego's appeal and direct SLD to review Soille San Diego's appeal to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California on September 15, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002818.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002818.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed September 6, 2000, by Lyman School District No. 42-1, Presho, South Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce Carrier,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002841.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002841.txt
  • requirement. The critical issue is when Sackets Harbor signed a contract with the service provider, not when it mailed the Form 471. Based on the record before us, Sackets Harbor signed a contract before anyone ever had an opportunity to submit a competitive bid for the project. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Sackets Harbor Central School District, Sackets Harbor, New York on May 5, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Anne B. Spaziani, Sackets Harbor Central School District 56, to Office of the Secretary, FCC, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002908.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002908.txt
  • a decision by the Universal Service Administrator to withhold funds allegedly due and payable to Ames under the schools and libraries support mechanisms. On July 31, 2000, Ames filed a Motion to Withdraw its appeal. The Division grants Ames' Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Ames' appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by the Ames Business & Learning Environments, Inc., Chandler, Arizona on July 31, 2000 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002909.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da002909.txt
  • funding implementation deadline for the schools and libraries support mechanism so that it can receive the full amount of funding that it requested. Our review of the record, however, finds that Franklin has received all funds requested. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Franklin's Letter of Appeal as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Franklin County School District, Carnesville, Georgia on December 30, 1999 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Sharon L. Webber Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alicia A. Frey, Franklin County Schools, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed December
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00028.doc
  • the Schools and Libraries Division IS EXTENDED BY sixty days from the original ninety-day deadline. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 47 C.F.R. § 54.724(b). 47 C.F.R §§ 54.722(a); 54.724(a). -28 00-28 ô õ J V
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00100.doc
  • with paragraph 6 above within 30 days of the release date of this Order. We direct SLD to consider the submitted documentation and act in accordance with this Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letter of Appeal filed on September 17, 1999, by Copan Public Schools of Copan, Oklahoma IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Letter from Delbert W. Moreland, Jr. Superintendent, Copan Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission (filed Sept. 17, 1999) (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00167.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00167.txt
  • Accordingly, we grant the requests for review and remand those applications to SLD for further processing. Circumstances Do Not Warrant a Waiver of Our Competitive Bidding requirements. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.504, 54.511, 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504, 54.511, 54.719 and 54.722, that the November 24, 1999, December 16, 1999, and January 13, 2000, Letters of Appeal filed by MasterMind Internet Services, Inc., ARE DENIED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART FOR FURTHER PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED HEREIN. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Request for Review of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010024.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Columbia failed to file an appeal of the June 2, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Columbia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Columbia Public Library, Columbia, Pennsylvania on October 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert V. McCarthy, Columbia Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 4, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010025.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010025.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 10, 2000, by Lake Havasu Unified School District, Lake Havasu City, Arizona, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Barbara
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010026.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010026.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lakeview failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lakeview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Lakeview Community Schools, Columbus, Nebraska on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kurt Harrison, Lakeview Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010027.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010027.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Matawan-Aberdeen failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Matawan-Aberdeen's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, Matawan, New Jersey on November 28, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Roland R. Pare, Ed.D, Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010028.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010028.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 17, 2000, by Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Perry W. Polk,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010029.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010029.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 16, 2000, by New Brighton Area School District, New Brighton, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Bruce P.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010030.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010030.txt
  • the Administrator. Because New Hampshire School failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss New Hampshire School's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53, Pembroke, New Hampshire on June 20, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary I. Rubega, New Hampshire School Administrative Unit No. 53,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010031.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010031.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 30, 2000, by Newport Public School District, Newport, Rhode Island, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Alan Kritz, Newport
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010032.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010032.txt
  • Sanger has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sanger's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sanger's initial appeal, Sanger may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Sanger Unified School District, Sanger, California, on October 23, 2000, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from Kim Jacobsen, Sanger Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010033.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010033.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Santa Ana failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Santa Ana's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on October 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010034.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010034.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Tuckahoe Union failed to file an appeal of the September 15, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Tuckahoe Union's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tuckahoe Union Free School District, Eastchester, New York on October 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael V. Yazurlo, Ed.D, Tuckahoe Union Free School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010044.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010044.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Austin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Austin Independent School District, Austin, Texas, on May 12, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Pascal D. Forgione, Austin Independent School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 12, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010045.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010045.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Baldwin's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Baldwin Public Library, Baldwin, New York, on May 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Hopkins, Baldwin Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 31, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010046.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010046.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Lakeside's Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Lakeside Youth Services, Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania, on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ronald K. MacClay, Educational Consortium for Telecommunications Savings (on behalf Lakeside Youth Services), to the Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010047.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010047.txt
  • Harbor's request for services to SLD's website. The contracts for which Oak Harbor seeks support, however, do not meet either of the limited exceptions for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Oak Harbor's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 13, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Oak Harbor School District No. 201, Oak Harbor, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce E. Worley, Oak Harbor School District No. 201, to the Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010048.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010048.txt
  • days before entering into an agreement with a service provider and therefore violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Common Carrier Bureau has consistently denied requests for review by applicants that had similarly violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules. The Division, therefore, denies Wells' Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Wells Public Library, Wells, Maine, on June 9, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sandra Broomfield, Wells Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed June 9, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010065.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010065.txt
  • applicants provide accurate information regarding funding requests. The Administrator must be able to reasonably estimate the total demand for support submitted by applicants during each filing period in order to make determinations regarding the availability of funding. We therefore conclude that SLD correctly denied Carl Schurz's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Carl Schurz High School on May 23, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan M. Harris, Carl Schurz High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 23, 2000 (Letter of Appeal). Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010145.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010145.txt
  • Colchester has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Colchester's Letter of Appeal to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Colchester's initial appeal, Colchester may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Colchester School District, Colchester, Vermont, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal from John C. Gifford, Colchester School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 13, 2000.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010146.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010146.txt
  • other priorities. These arguments do not rise to the level of good cause necessary to justify waiving our rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Newburgh has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny Newburgh's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on July 10, 2000, by Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Newburgh, New York, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010147.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010147.txt
  • 10, 1997 and June 5, 1998. None of these requests were subject to existing, binding agreements as defined by the Commission's rules for Year 2 and were thus subject to the competitive bidding requirement. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Raytown's requests for support. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 14, 2000, Letter of Appeal filed by Raytown Quality Schools, Raytown, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from R.G. Kirby, Raytown Quality Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 14, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010148.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010148.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 9, 2000, by Sutton School, CNSU, Lyndonville, Vermont, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary Ann Riggie, Sutton School,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010175.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010175.txt
  • the burden of carefully reviewing all documents sent to and received from SLD for accuracy. Accordingly, we conclude that East Side Union has not presented the special circumstances necessary to warrant relief from the filing deadline. We therefore deny East Side Union's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on April 11, 2000, by East Side Union High School District, San Jose, California, and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in which to file appeals ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010200.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010200.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Atlantic County failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Atlantic County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Atlantic County Library System, Mays Landing, New Jersey on December 4, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alyce J. Bowers, Atlantic County Library System, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010201.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010201.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Clearview failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Clearview's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Clearview Local School District, Lorain, Ohio on December 8, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kent R. Zeman, Clearview Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010202.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 12, 2000, by Granville Public Schools, Granville, North Dakota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Judith Ann Deutsch, Granville
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010203.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010203.txt
  • Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: January 26, 2001 Released: January 29, 2001 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 20, 2000, by Leon County Schools, Tallahassee, Florida, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William D. Piotrowski, Leon County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010204.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010204.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed November 28, 2000, by Levittown Union Free School District, Levittown, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Winston E.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010205.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010205.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Letter of Appeal was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed December 13, 2000, by Pluralistic School, Santa Monica, California, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Kathleen Lenihan, Pluralistic School, dated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010206.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010206.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Solon failed to file an appeal of the September 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Solon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Solon City Schools, Solon, Ohio on December 5, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kirk B. Miller, Solon City Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 5, 2000 (Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010207.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010207.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because neither Scanlon or MetroCon filed an appeal of the February 18, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss MetroCon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by MetroCon Communications, New York, New York on June 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Al Garcia, MetroCon Communications, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22, 2000 (Letter of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010212.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010212.txt
  • (internal connections) being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand NAFC's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider NAFC's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by NAFC. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on November 1, 1999 to reconsider the dismissal of the Appeal it filed on April 26, 2000 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Appeal filed by New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation on April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010213.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010213.txt
  • that the SLD correctly determined that only 72 of Soille's students were eligible for the national school lunch program under the federal income eligibility guidelines. Thus, SLD properly found Soille eligible for a 50 percent discount for internal connections, and we find no merit in Solle's appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on June 9, 2000 by Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, San Diego, California, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Simcha Weiser, Soille San Diego Hebrew Day School, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010285.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010285.txt
  • specify what additional information was required for the application. We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the record does not show that SLD adequately communicated the nature of the requested information to St. Stanislaus. Accordingly, we remand St. Stanislaus' application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the St. Stanislaus Kostka School, Chicago, Illinois on May 15, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review St. Stanislaus' funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010314.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010314.txt
  • applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Given Yeshiva's failure to certify the Form 471 subsequent to the required posting period, SLD properly denied the application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, Brooklyn, New York, filed April 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Alter Obermeister, Yeshiva Ahavas Torah, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 11, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010315.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010315.txt
  • was for tariffed services, such services must be re-bid every year because they do not fall under the limited exemptions from competitive bidding. Therefore, because Thomas Crane did not seek competitive bids for Funding Year 2, we find that SLD correctly denied Thomas Crane's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 10, 2000 Request for Review filed by Thomas Crane Public Library, Quincy, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jody Parsley, Thomas Crane Public Library, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010316.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010316.txt
  • SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Accordingly, we believe that waivers of these deadlines should not be routinely granted. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Ashby's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 4, 2001, by Ashby Public Schools, Ashby, Minnesota IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Renee Melby, Ashby Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 4, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010317.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010317.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 1, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010318.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010318.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed October 13, 2000, by Daingerfield-Lone Star Independent School District, Daingerfield, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Richard Woods, Daingerfield-Lone
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010319.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010319.txt
  • as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission or SLD only upon receipt. Because Hawthorn failed to timely appeal the April 14, 2000 decision to either the Commission or SLD, the Requests for Review will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed November 17, 2000, and December 4, 2000, by Hawthorn School District 73 District, Hawthorn, Illinois, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010320.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010320.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 7, 1999, by Peach Public Libraries, Fort Valley, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Billy Tripp, Peach Public
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010321.doc
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Windham failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Windham's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Windham Public Schools, Windham, Connecticut on January 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Millie C. Wheeler, Windham Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 3, 2001 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010324.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010324.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 22, 2000, by Half Hollow Hills School District, Dix Hills, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Charles
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010350.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010350.txt
  • In other instances where SLD has failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Adams Twelve's application to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Adams Twelve Five Star Schools, Northglenn, Colorado, on April 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Adams Twelve's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010351.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010351.txt
  • Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we cannot permit Cheney to amend its FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 16, 2000, by Cheney Public Schools, Cheney, Washington, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau In the Matter of Request for Review by Cheney School District No. 360, filed May 16, 2000 (Request for Review). See
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010352.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010352.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Flour Bluff Independent School District, Corpus Christi, Texas, April 13, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Darrell Earwood, Flour Bluff Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 13, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010353.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010353.txt
  • and priority two services being considered separately on their own merits. We, therefore, remand Pioneerland's application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider Pioneerland's FCC Form 471 and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter providing discounts for all appropriate priority one services requested by Pioneerland. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), section 1.113 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.113, IS WAIVED to the extent described herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a), the Request for Review filed by Pioneerland Library System, Willmar, Minnesota, on June 25, 1999,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010355.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010355.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Dietrich failed to file an appeal of the May 5, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Dietrich's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dietrich School District No. 314, Dietrich, Idaho on January 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Peter M. Bolz, Sr., Dietrich School District No. 314, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010356.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010356.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Grant County failed to file an appeal of the August 31, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Grant County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Grant County Education Service District, Canyon City, Oregon on May 15, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Don Coffey, Grant County Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010357.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010357.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Highway Christian's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Highway Christian's initial request, Highway Christian may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Highway Christian Academy, New York City, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Darren Page, Highway Christian Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010358.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010358.txt
  • the Administrator. Because St. Pius V failed to file an appeal of the October 5, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Pius V's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Pius V Parish School, Jacksonville, Florida on January 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elise Kennedy, St. Pius V Parish School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010373.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010373.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because USD failed to file an appeal of the May 12, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss USD's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Unified School District #214, Ulysses, Kansas on February 5, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joe Breeden, Unified School District #214, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 5, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010387.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010387.txt
  • Request For Proposal (RFP) for the original services. Accordingly, we conclude that LAUSD's request for a service change should be considered by SLD in accordance with this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and the Commission's rules, sections 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, 47 U.S.C. §§ 54.702, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Guidance by the Universal Service Administrative Company concerning the Request of Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, filed on February 9, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau USAC Letter from D. Scott Barash to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010411.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010411.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Acadia Parish's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Acadia Parish's use of its remote access router to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Acadia Parish School Board 5, Crowley, Louisiana, on May 26, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Acadia Parish's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010412.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010412.txt
  • for existing, binding contracts permitted by the Commission's rules. Antioch seeks support for tariffed services and for contracts entered into in April and July of 1999. Accordingly, consistent with prior Bureau decisions, SLD correctly denied Antioch's requests for support. The Division, therefore, denies Antioch's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by Antioch Unified School District, Antioch, California, on August 21, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael Gudjohnsen, Director of Purchasing, Antioch Unified School District Purchasing Department, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010420.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010420.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Buffalo and Erie's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts, and consequently, whether maintenance and memory upgrades of such routers are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie County Public Library on May 19, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Buffalo's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010433.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010433.txt
  • only asserts that service will commence on or after the date of the letter. Consequently, we find Livingston Parish's argument unpersuasive and in the absence of other evidence in the record we find that the Applicant violated the 28-day waiting period with regard to the Com-Net vendor. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Livingston Parish School District, Livingston Louisiana, on May 26, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from J. Rogers Pope, Livingston Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 26,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010434.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010434.txt
  • 471 were rejected as untimely because of the server failure. In accordance with that Order, SLD has notified the above-captioned applicants individually that it would consider their late-filed applications as having been filed inside the filing window. Therefore, the Division dismisses these Requests for Waiver as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the above-captioned Requests for Waiver are DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sara Ginsberg, Chabad Academy of Myrtle Beach, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed July 3, 2000; Letter from Beverly I. White, Greenville County School District, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010435.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010435.txt
  • that comprise a single school would generally be considered internal connections rather than part of a WAN. Nothing in the record before us indicates whether the other building is an instructional building comprising part of the same school. Accordingly, we shall remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the appeal filed by the Solomon Schechter School of Greater Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, on May 4, 2000 IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Solomon Schechter's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010463.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010463.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss Los Angeles Unified's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Los Angeles Unified's initial request, Los Angeles Unified may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Catherine Banker, Los Angeles Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 13, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010464.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010464.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 19, 2000, by Salem County Vocational Technical Schools, Woodstown, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Esther R. Pennell,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010506.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010506.txt
  • and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. For that reason, Petersburg's Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petersburg City Public Schools, dated June 6, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Herbert H. Morris, Petersburg Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 6, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010516.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010516.txt
  • substantially complete.'' Upon review of the record in each of the Requests for Review, we conclude that each presents circumstances factually similar to those in Naperville and meets the standards articulated in Naperville. Accordingly, we remand the applications to SLD for processing pursuant to the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Paul A. Mulder, Allendale Public Schools, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010523.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010523.txt
  • rule. Caribou's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Caribou from having to comply with our policies regarding ineligible services. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Caribou School District, Caribou, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lynn McNeal, Caribou Regional School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 18, 2000 (Letter of Appeal).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010524.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010524.txt
  • funded. Given the volume of applications that SLD reviews every year, it is critical that applicants follow instructions and seek support only for eligible services, so that the program can effectively target funds to those services that can be supported. Ultimately, this benefits deserving schools and libraries. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the April 7, 2000, Request for Review filed by Maine School Administrative District #49, Fairfield, Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Maine School Administrative District #49 of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010525.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010525.txt
  • Because ineligible equipment constituted more than thirty percent of St. Landry's original funding request, and in light of the prohibition against allowing applicants to amend their applications once the filing window has closed, we affirm SLD's decision to reject St. Landry's funding request in its entirety. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 28, 2000, by St. Landry Parish School District, Opelousas, Louisiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lanny Moreau, St. Landry Parish School District, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 28, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010585.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010585.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. Allowing applicants who fail to follow program rules to amend their applications prejudices other applicants who properly completed their applications and sought only eligible services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 12, 1999, by Caddo Parish School Board, Shreveport, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010586.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010586.txt
  • employees, grounds/maintenance workers, and food service/warehouse workers, which are clearly ineligible for funding under the program rules because they fail to serve an educational purpose. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, deny Rockwood's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 12, 2000, by Rockwood School District R 6, Eureka, Missouri, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Steve Wester, Rockwood School District R 6, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010587.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010587.txt
  • failed to provide an explanation for its determination of ineligibility, the Bureau has remanded the application to SLD for further consideration. We believe that such action is also appropriate here and shall remand Springfield's application to SLD for further consideration under applicable program rules and policies. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed on May 18, 2000 by Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Springfield's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010588.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010588.txt
  • Heights' Request for Review seeking to use this method must be denied. In addition, we reject Western Heights' assertion that this appeal raises a novel issue of policy which must be considered by the full Commission, because as noted above, the Commission has already addressed the issue. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Western Heights School District, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on July 31, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request For Review by John D. Harrington, Funds for Learning, on behalf of Western Heights School District, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010648.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010648.txt
  • in its application, we find that the ineligible services requested in FRN 264664 totals less than 30 percent of the total request. We therefore remand Boston Public Library's application to SLD for further consideration and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter consistent with this order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library, Boston, Massachusetts, on June 5, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent described herein, and is otherwise DENIED. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010649.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010649.txt
  • to require an applicant to be responsible for providing sufficient information in its FCC Form 471 to enable SLD to determine whether the requested services are eligible. In the absence of such information, we believe that SLD was justified in concluding that this request should be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Boston Public Library on May 30, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as discussed herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Boston Public Library's funding application and to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010650.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010650.txt
  • Buffalo and Erie I directly applies and on remand, SLD should review the capabilities and actual use of the Cisco 2501 routers in question to determine whether these routers are discount eligible and consequently, whether the requested operating system and memory upgrades are also eligible for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Buffalo and Erie Public Library on July 11, 2000 is GRANTED to the extent provided herein, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010652.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010652.txt
  • and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service mechanism funds to eligible services only. We therefore deny Paducah's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 7, 2000, by Paducah Public Schools, Paducah, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeff Nelson, Paducah Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for Review). Letter from Schools
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010653.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010653.txt
  • administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must ensure that its request for discounts satisfies program rules, which limit universal service funds to eligible services only. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 12, 2000 Request for Review filed by Pike County School District, Troy, Alabama, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sherry A. Key and Dr. John R. Key, Pike County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010654.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010654.txt
  • requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We decline to overturn SLD's decision when the applicant effectively revises its application on appeal. We, therefore, affirm SLD's decision to deny Portland's request for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Portland Public Schools, Portland, Oregon, on February 22, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Chris Bronsema, Portland Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 22, 2000 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010655.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010655.txt
  • otherwise been entitled, and because there is no evidence in SLD's records that Visitation attempted to correct this error at any time prior to approval, we conclude that SLD correctly affirmed its funding commitment based on the total pre-discount cost reported in the applicant's FCC Form 471. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Visitation Academy, dated May 24, 2000, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John H. Leaman, Visitation Academy, Bay City, Michigan, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed May 24, 2000 (Request for Review). Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010736.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010736.txt
  • service provider taking part in the bidding process, SLD reasonably determined that the Commission's competitive bidding rules were violated under the precedent established in Mastermind. Therefore, SLD properly removed the relevant Forms 470 off its web-site and denied the funding requests in the associated Form 471 applications. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by A. R. Carethers SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Applegate Adventist Academy on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the Request for Review filed by Berean SDA School on August 25, 2000 IS DENIED, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010773.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010773.txt
  • 471 filing deadline. The record shows that Audrey Pack complied with the program's requirements in providing additional information to SLD on December 13, 2000. Thus, the untimely posting of the FCC Form 470 is not attributable to Audrey Pack. We therefore grant Audrey Pack's waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Audrey Pack Memorial Library, Spring City, Tennessee on July 3, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process Audrey Pack's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010774.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010774.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Bibb's request to change service providers. On March 12, 2001, Bibb filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Bibb's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Bibb's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Bibb County Board of Education, Centreville, Alabama, on March 12, 2001 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010775.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010775.txt
  • that includes both eligible and ineligible products. Given Commission rules and precedent, SLD properly denied Fairfax's entire funding request. Therefore, SLD clearly has authority, under these limited circumstances, to deny funding requests that include both eligible and ineligible services, and we reject Fairfax's claims to the contrary. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 22, 2000 by Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review by Fairfax County Public Library, of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010776.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010776.txt
  • also emphasized that ``your response on [the Item 22 Review] worksheets should represent the total of all of the resources available in all of the eligible entities covered by your request.'' Because CMCC failed to comply with these clear directives, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Central Minnesota Computing Center, filed October 13, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael T. Bauer, Central Minnesota Computer Center, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 13, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010777.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010777.txt
  • additional administrative burdens. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, administrative necessity requires that each applicant be responsible for clearly and accurately describing its funding request and for understanding all applicable program rules. We therefore deny St. John's request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. John the Baptist School, Petersburg, Nebraska on May 23, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Reicks, St. John the Baptist School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010778.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010778.txt
  • of the Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). The Commission's rules provide that requests for review of decisions issued by the Administrator shall be considered and acted upon by the Common Carrier Bureau, except that requests which raise novel questions of fact, law or policy shall be considered by the full Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). Request for Review by Copan 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-26231, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, 15 FCC Rcd 5498, ¶ 1 (rel. 2000) (Copan Order). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services Requested and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010793.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010793.txt
  • Therefore, we disagree with SLD's assessment that well over 30 % of the funding request is ineligible under program rules. Accordingly, we grant Chelmsford's request for review and remand its application to SLD, and direct SLD to reconsider this FRN consistent with program rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 22, 2000, by Chelmsford Public School District, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and remanded to the Schools and Libraries Division. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Chelmsford's funding application and to issue a revised
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010794.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010794.txt
  • only $18,000. The information provided by CVA indicates that CVA's available technological and budgetary resources were inadequate, thus CVA failed to demonstrate that it possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny CVA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed October 26, 2000, by the Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Monte Nardy, Children's Village Academy, Kinston, North Carolina, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed October 26, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010795.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010795.txt
  • to post them to its web site in a timely manner causing the waiting period to extend past the filing window deadline. In this instance, however, Henderson's defective Form 470, not SLD, caused the posting delay. Therefore, a waiver of the Commission's rules is not warranted. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Country Library System, Watertown, New York, on behalf of Henderson Free Library, Henderson, New York, on June 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Yvonne Reff, North Country
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010796.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010796.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Little Miami failed to file an appeal of the August 10, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Little Miami's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Little Miami Local School District, Morrow, Ohio on May 18, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from George Long, Little Miami Local School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010797.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010797.txt
  • it assigned a ``$0'' amount to the ``[i]nstallation of telephone wiring'' identified in an attachment to its FCC Form 471. Manhasset's application supports SLD's determination that wiring costs included in Manhattan's FCC Form 471 are attributable to an ineligible product rather than to eligible telephone wiring. 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2000, by Manhasset Union Free School District, Westbury, New York IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010798.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010798.txt
  • must act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Here, New Albany's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, New Albany, Indiana, on May 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dennis A. Cahill, New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010833.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010833.txt
  • In light of our decision in White Sulphur Springs, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Hood River's application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Hood River's use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Hood River County School District on May 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Hood River's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010834.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010834.txt
  • pursuant to existing, binding contracts. Accordingly, SLD posted those services on its website for competitive bidding. Mobile did not wait 28 days before renewing an agreement with a service provider, and did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. The Division, therefore, denies Mobile's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mobile County Public School System, Mobile, Alabama, on August 3, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Margaret Blake, Mobile County Public School System, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed August
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010852.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010852.txt
  • than five times as many computer ports as available computers. We find that neither BTCS nor Total Communications USA demonstrated to SLD that BTCS possessed the necessary resources to make effective use of the services for which it requested support. We, therefore, deny BTCS's request for review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bethlehem Temple Christian School, Duquesne, Pennsylvania, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Benjamin J. Aron, Schwaninger & Associates, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 8, 1999 (Request for Review). 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010853.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010853.txt
  • have the necessary resources to make effective use of the services and connections it requested. Therefore, we find no merit in Laurel Hall's argument to the contrary. III. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.19, 0.219, 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on January 14, 2000 by the Laurel Hall School, Hagerstown, Maryland, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of Benjamin J. Aron, Counsel, Laurel Hall School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 14,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010854.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010854.txt
  • contracts for bidding, we must reject Mercer County's argument that this form has satisfied its competitive bidding obligations on the relevant requests. Instead, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Mercer County for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County School District on June 7, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Mercer County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 7, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010855.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010855.txt
  • as a waiver of the 30-day rule, because SLD has no authority to make such a waiver. Since Mass. DOE is not entitled to relief even when the merits are considered, we need not decide whether it would be appropriate to grant a waiver of section 54.720. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on October 5, 2000 by Massachusetts Department of Education, Malden, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from John Fuller, Massachusetts Department of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 5, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010873.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010873.txt
  • governing the calculation of discount rates. As in Hamilton County School Board, SLD has properly applied the Commission's rules and the program's procedures. These applicants' challenge to the fairness of the rules is properly initiated by filing a petition for rulemaking, rather than a Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Calhoun County School District on August 10, 2000; by Craig City School District on May 17, 2000; by Holmes County School District on May 8, 2000; by Jackson County School Board on May 12, 2000; by Lake County Schools on June 19,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010876.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010876.txt
  • average discount method described in Hamilton's Request for Review for those discounts. The method described in Hamilton's Request for Review applies only for services shared by multiple schools and only those schools sharing the services-as opposed to all schools in the school district-are included in that calculation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Hamilton County School Board, Jasper, Florida, on May 9, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Parks, Hamilton County School Board, filed May 9, 2000 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c) of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010877.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010877.txt
  • funding request. Given the phrasing of SLD's request for information on individual hardware costs, we conclude that it was reasonable for Kerman to interpret SLD's inquiry as not requesting information relating to other costs, such as labor. Accordingly, we remand Kerman's application to SLD for further review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 12, 2000, by Kerman Unified School District, Kerman, California, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Library Division to review Kerman's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010891.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010891.txt
  • the Administrator, we dismiss California Youth Authority's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on California Youth Authority's initial request, California Youth Authority may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 29, 2001, by California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, Sacramento, California, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review from David Marson, California Youth Authority/California Education Authority, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010892.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010892.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 14, 2001, by Rome City School District, Rome, Georgia, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to David Smith, Rome City
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010918.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010918.txt
  • which components of the Dukane SmartSystem were deemed ineligible for funding by SLD. Accordingly, we cannot ascertain whether the 30 percent policy was correctly applied in this case. For that reason, we remand Delano Union's application and direct SLD to review the eligibility of the requested services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 9, 2000, by Delano Union, Delano, California, IS GRANTED to the extent described herein. We direct SLD to review Delano Union's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010919.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010919.txt
  • appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Ohio SchoolNet's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Ohio SchoolNet's initial appeal, Ohio SchoolNet may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 22, 2000, by Ohio SchoolNet Commission, Columbus, Ohio, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Bloxam, Ohio SchoolNet Commission, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 22, 2000. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010920.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010920.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Lemoore failed to file an appeal of the April 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Lemoore's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Lemoore Union High School District, Hanford, California on February 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ellen Kimbriel, Lemoore Union High School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010921.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010921.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss St. Christopher-Ottilie's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on St. Christopher-Ottilie's initial request, St. Christopher-Ottilie may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on February 12, 2001, by St. Christopher-Ottilie, Glen Cove, New York, on behalf of Theresa Paplin School, Glen Cove, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Request for Review
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011034.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011034.txt
  • provided with an effective ``opportunity to make corrections'' to its FCC Form 471. In an effort to provide applicants with an effective opportunity to make such corrections after the issuance of RALs, SLD now includes both the monthly and annual pre-discount cost of funding requests in RALs. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on May 18, 2000 by Marion County Public Schools, Ocala, Florida, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Marion's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011035.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011035.txt
  • signing its contracts and submitting its FCC Form 471. SLD should have been able to determine that Joliet complied with the 28-day posting rule. Accordingly, we remand Joliet's application and direct SLD to reconsider Joliet's application and, if warranted, to issue a new funding commitment decision letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Joliet Grade School, Springfield, Illinois on June 8, 2000 IS GRANTED, to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Danielle Gustafson, Joliet Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 8, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011036.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011036.txt
  • qualified existing contract, using other information provided, SLD could have reasonably determined the exact nature of the telecommunication services requested. We, therefore, remand Tomahawk's application and direct SLD to issue a new funding commitment decision letter based on the originally submitted FCC Form 471 and its attachments. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Letter of Appeal filed by Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin filed on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Lin Kautza, Tomahawk School District, Tomahawk, Wisconsin, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 26, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011037.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011037.txt
  • 17 would not have been reasonably apparent to SLD. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding and complying with all the relevant programs and procedures. 19 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, Washington, on June 2, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clare Donahue, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011050.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011050.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 7, 2001, by Amherst Independent School District, Amherst, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Michael P. Nace, Amherst
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011051.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011051.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 3, 2001, by Harlandale Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Al Martin, Harlandale
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011052.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011052.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Jefferson failed to file an appeal of the July 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Jefferson's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Jefferson Independent School District, Jefferson, Texas on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mike Wood, Jefferson Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 26, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011053.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011053.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Montgomery County failed to file an appeal of the June 23, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Montgomery County's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Montgomery County School District, Montgomery, Alabama on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol A. Doucet, Ed.D, Montgomery County School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011055.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011055.txt
  • decision issued by the Administrator. Because District 4 failed to file an appeal of the June 16, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss its appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, Guilford, Maine on February 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael P. Cyr, Superintendent of Schools School Administrative District #4, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011056.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011056.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 30, 2001, by Tyrone Area School District, Tyrone, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Victoria L. Aults, Tyrone
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011090.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011090.txt
  • and accurately described their funding requests. Moreover, permitting applicants to amend their requests after the window closed could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. We therefore deny Old Town's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 2, 2000, by Old Town School District, Old Town Maine, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard M. Beaudoin, Old Town School Department, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011091.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011091.txt
  • remanded SLD's decision, finding no support in the record for SLD's conclusion in light of the integration of eligible services with the rejected components. Here, SLD has not adequately justified its conclusion that this equipment should be deemed eligible. We therefore remand to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Philadelphia School District, on August 25, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Philadelphia's application, and if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above stated
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011117.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011117.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Calhan failed to file an appeal of the October 26, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Calhan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Calhan School District RJ-1, Calhan, Colorado on April 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sharon A. Olyejar, Calhan School District RJ-1, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 12,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011118.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011118.txt
  • Form 471 on April 26, 1999, only 18 days after posting its FCC Form 470, demonstrates conclusively that it did not wait at least 28 days from the date of posting its service needs before entering into a service agreement and thus violated the competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the July 25, 2000 Request for Review filed by Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, Cynthiana, Kentucky, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from E. Susan Ellis, Cynthiana-Harrison County Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011119.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011119.txt
  • subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). We conclude that the particular facts of this case do rise to the level of special circumstances required for a deviation from the general rule. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, on July 6, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from John Lavelle, Homer Community Consolidated School District 33C, Lockport, Illinois, to the Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011120.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011120.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, ICS fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We, therefore, find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, on July 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Louise Frangella, Immaculate Conception School, Irvington-on-Hudson, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 24,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011121.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011121.txt
  • view of the merits of Wetzel's Request for Review might be different. Instead, SLD re-construed the request without giving Wetzel notice and opportunity to support its claim. This was an error which warrants granting Wetzel's Request for Review and remanding this matter to SLD for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 15, 2000, by Wetzel County School District, New Martinsville, West Virginia, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Wetzel's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011165.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011165.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because North Babylon failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss North Babylon's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by North Babylon Union Free School District, North Babylon, New York on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosanne Sweeney, North Babylon Union Free School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011179.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011179.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 24, 2001, by Beth Chana Elementary and High School for Girls, Beth Chana, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011180.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011180.txt
  • not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for waiver of our rules. Moreover, because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 12, 2001, by Ellenville Central School District, Ellenville, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Shari L. Dwyer,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011181.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011181.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011182.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011182.txt
  • Sayreville has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Sayreville's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Sayreville's initial request, Sayreville may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sayreville District Schools, Sayreville, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James Dougherty, Sayreville District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 20, 2001. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011202.txt
  • requests that the Commission order SLD to process its FCC Form 471. Based on the information before us, the USCN provided to SLD on Richland's FCC Form 471 matches the USCN indicated on Richland's FCC Form 470. Accordingly, we remand Richland's application to SLD for further determination. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Appeal filed August 17, 2000, by the Richland School District, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and we REMAND this matter to the Administrator for further processing consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011230.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011230.txt
  • ESoft has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss ESoft's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on ESoft's initial request, ESoft may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Esoft, Inc., Broomfield, Colorado, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Jackie Johnson, Esoft, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 27, 2001. Letter from Schools and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011231.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011231.txt
  • consider Seward's request. Seward subsequently filed the instant Request for Review with the Commission. We have since learned that on August 4, 2000, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter approving Seward's request for discounted services. Therefore, we dismiss Seward's Request for Review because it is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Seward Community Library, Seward, Arkansas on June 30, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Linville, Seward Community Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011248.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011248.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Bank Street's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Bank Street's initial request, Bank Street may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bank Street School for Children, New York, New York, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Frank Nuara, Bank Street School for Children, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011249.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011249.txt
  • timely appeal with the Administrator. Consistent with this analysis we therefore remand this matter to SLD. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Olmstead's timely May 8, 2000 appeal, Olmstead may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 5, 2001, by Olmstead Falls City Schools, Olmstead Falls, Ohio, is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011251.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011251.txt
  • those employees to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Danbury fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Danbury Public Schools, Danbury, Connecticut, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie C. Schroeder, Danbury Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on July 25, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011252.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011252.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Dummerston fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Dummerston Elementary School, Dummerston, Vermont, on August 24, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Betsy Whittaker, Dummerston Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed on August 24, 2000 (Waiver
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011253.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011253.txt
  • reconsidered its earlier denial and granted Weskan's request, mailing the decision to both Weskan and the service provider. Because the Division finds that the errors asserted by Weskan in its Request for Review have been corrected by SLD, the Division dismisses the Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Weskan Unified School District #242, Weskan, Kansas, on July 17, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Greg Robinson, Weskan Unified School District #242, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011294.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011294.txt
  • Beach acknowledges that it received its April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter at the Long Beach, Washington address. Merely stating that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 30, 2001, by Ocean Beach School District No. 101, Long Beach, Washington, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Mary
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011295.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011295.txt
  • an Administrator's Decision on Appeal on April 16, 2001 approving NJ State Library's appeal which requested corrections to the billed entity information on its SLD application 169943. Because SLD has approved NJ State Library appeal, we dismiss NJ State Library's Request for Review because it is moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New Jersey State Library, Trenton, New Jersey on June 30, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Kay, New Jersey State Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011328.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011328.txt
  • seek services not initially requested. This administrative practice enables SLD to apply our funding priority rules properly in situations where demand exceeds the annual funding cap. Thus, we do not believe the application should be modified to include a funding request for Internet connections from Merit Network. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722 (a), that the Request for Review filed by Genesee Intermediate School District on July 31, 2000 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Knox-Pipes, Genesee Intermediate School District, Flint, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011329.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011329.txt
  • files, HAFPL demonstrates that it failed to comply with a program mandate. By filing late, HAFPL ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline, HAFPL is subject to the funding priorities set forth in section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford, New Jersey, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sylvia Gidwani, Holland-Alexandria Free Public Library, Milford New Jersey, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011330.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011330.txt
  • the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. We find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we therefore, deny Powhatan's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, on July 25, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sister Elizabeth, Powhatan School, Boyce, Virginia, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000 (Waiver Request). 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011352.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011352.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 18, 2001, by First Baptist Academy, Universal City, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to C. Stubblefield, First Baptist
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011358.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011358.txt
  • applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Dallas ISD's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Dallas Independent School District on February, 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Ruben Bohuchot, Dallas Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 12, 2001 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011360.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011360.txt
  • Madison's Request for Review and conclude that SLD properly denied the Madison's application. Madison has raised no new issues on appeal. Further, Madison has failed to demonstrate that SLD incorrectly applied our rules concerning funding priorities. Accordingly, we uphold SLD's decision and deny Madison's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Madison School District, Madison, Heights, Michigan, on February 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Diane McCord, Madison District Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 13, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011361.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011361.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed December 29, 2000, by Project Interconnect, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to William R. Leto, Project Interconnect,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011362.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011362.txt
  • Redondo Beach's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program rules and procedures. Here, we find no grounds for relieving Redondo Beach from having to comply with our policies regarding competitive bidding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Redondo Beach Unified School District, Redondo Beach, California, on September 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patricia Hosken, Redondo Beach Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 7, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011363.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011363.txt
  • the Commission's competitive bidding rules. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. The Division, therefore, denies Ouray's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Ouray School District R-1, Ouray, Colorado, on March 13, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Heidi McDuffie, Ouray School District R-1, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed March 13,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011397.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011397.txt
  • the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. On April 27, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter granting discounts that are-with respect to all eligible services-identical to those requested in the application at issue here. Therefore, we dismiss as moot Fort Osage's Request for Review. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Osage R-1 School District, Independence, Missouri, on March 1, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator By Fort Osage R-1
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011398.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011398.txt
  • because Missoula has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Missoula's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Missoula's request, Missoula may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on January 31, 2001 by Missoula Public Library, Missoula, Montana, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bette Ammon, Missoula Public Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed January 31,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011399.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011399.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because ONC failed to file an appeal of the July 5, 2000 Administrator Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss ONC's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, Stamford, New York on May 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rodger Oesterle, Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 3,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011404.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011404.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Bnos Zion failed to file an appeal of the September 1, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Bnos Zion's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bnos Zion of Bobov School, Brooklyn, New York on May 15, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi Jacov Zucker, Bnos Zion of Bobov School, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011412.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011412.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Flint ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Flint is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(g). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, on August 16, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Sheehan, Flint Memorial Library, North Reading, Massachusetts, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 16,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011504.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011504.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Fair Lawn has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 22, 2000 by Fair Lawn Board of Education, Fair Lawn, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey, Deputy Chief Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bruce Watson, Fair Lawn Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 22,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011506.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011506.txt
  • 471 after the filing window closed. Altoona's exemption from the 28-day posting requirement did not relieve it of its obligation under program rules to file its Forms 471 prior to the close of the application window, and we uphold SLD's denial of funding on that grounds. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Altoona Area School District, Altoona, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dean G. Wilt, Altoona Area School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 7, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011507.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011507.txt
  • for SLD to require applicants to adhere strictly to its filing deadlines. Chabad has failed to demonstrate good cause for waiving the filing deadline. For these reasons, we find that the circumstances here do not warrant relief and, therefore, we deny Chabad's request to waive section 54.720(b). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed on April 9, 2001, by Chabad Hebrew School, Wayne, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter of Appeal from Rabbi Michel Gurkov, Chabad Hebrew School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011508.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011508.txt
  • filed the instant Request for Review. The record shows that on September 15, 2000 and November 17, 2000, SLD issued Funding Commitment Decision Letters regarding requests for discounted services to Epiphany Lutheran School and Clara Muhammad School, respectively. Therefore, we dismiss Connect2's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., Staten Island, New York on January 24, 2000 and March 16, 2000, ARE DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letters from John Angelides, Connect2 Internet Networks, Inc., to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011509.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011509.txt
  • act to ensure that its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as well as program rules. Under the circumstances in this case, we find no basis for deviating from the Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for complying with program rules and procedures. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the August 31, 2000, Request for Review filed by Evesham Township Public Schools, Marlton, New Jersey, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Frank Summers, Evesham Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 31, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011510.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011510.txt
  • the applicant wishes to be considered with other in-window applicants. Thus, by filing late, Marshall ran the risk of not receiving any funding. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, Marshall is subject to the funding priorities set forth in Section 54.507(c). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, July 3, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joan Noel, Marshall County Board of Education, Guntersville, Alabama, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011512.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011512.txt
  • affected by a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Petoskey failed to file an appeal of the January 30, 2001 Rejection Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Petoskey's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Petosky High School, Petoskey, Michigan on May 17, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gregory Czarnecki, Petosky High School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed May 17, 2001 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011513.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011513.txt
  • competitive bidding in all situations except where an applicant has a pre-existing contract. Given that SLD had no evidence of such a contract, we find that on the record before it, SLD correctly denied funding to Rib Lake for failure to comply with the competitive bidding rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the June 2, 2000 Request for Review filed by Rib Lake School District, Rib Lake, Wisconsin, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Anderson and Dan Boxx, Rib Lake School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011514.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011514.txt
  • for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form. Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Ana, California on March 13, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Aeppli, Santa Ana Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011515.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011515.txt
  • thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. Because we find no basis for waiver of the filing window deadline, we deny St. Marys' Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, on July 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Joseph Petrick, St. Marys Public Library, St. Marys, Pennsylvania, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011558.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011558.txt
  • by the consortium. Further, there is nothing in the record, including the copy of the agreement with DDS submitted to SLD by SEOVEC, that indicates to the contrary. Thus, the maintenance and support of this equipment were properly characterized as internal connections, and funding was correctly denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on March 16, 2001 by Southeastern Ohio Voluntary Education Cooperative, Athens, Ohio is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this application is remanded to SLD for further consideration of FRN 381223 consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011559.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011559.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 31, 2000, by St. Mary School, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Gary Campione, St. Mary School,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011560.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011560.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 20, 2000, by West Shore Community College, Scottville, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Remittance Statement from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., dated May 15, 2000. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011571.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011571.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 19, 2001, by New Kensington-Arnold School District, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Jim Jones, New Kensington-Arnold
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011572.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011572.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 27, 2001, by Sampson-Clinton Public Library, Clinton, North Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robin Hollingsworth, Sampson-Clinton Public Library,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011573.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011573.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Arizona Agribusiness failed to file an appeal of the June 30, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Arizona Agribusiness's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Katherine L. Schroder Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda Proctor Downing, Arizona Agribusiness and Equine Center, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011620.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011620.txt
  • for further review. In doing so, we make no determination as to whether the remaining members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts, beyond our finding that they should not be denied on grounds that Project Interconnect lacks authority to make the applications on their behalf. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Project Interconnect on October 16, 2000, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and these applications are remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from William
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011625.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011625.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 5, 2000, by Saint Thomas Aquinas School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephanie Nagle, Saint Thomas
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011697.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011697.txt
  • appeal to SLD should be considered as timely. The record shows that SLD received the SLD Appeal Letter on September 13, 2000, 29 days after the Minimum Processing Standards Letter was mailed. Therefore, Praxis' appeal should be considered as timely and we remand this matter to SLD. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by the Praxis Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, IS GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Administrator for further consideration consistent with this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Jasper Jones, Praxis Institute,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011698.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011698.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 1, 2001, by Rice Independent School District, Rice, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Larry Baer, Rice Independent
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011699.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011699.txt
  • within 30 days of the issuance of the decision of which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed May 30, 2001, by Scott County School District, Forest, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Tim Crotwell, Scott County
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011700.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011700.txt
  • Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Company (Administrator), pursuant to which SLD denied Torah's request for telecommunication services. On June 20, 2001, Torah filed a Motion to Withdraw its Request for Review. The Division grants Torah's Motion to Withdraw and, accordingly, dismisses Torah's Request for Review. 2. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Torah High School of Long Beach, Long Beach, New York, on June 20, 2001, IS GRANTED. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a),
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011701.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011701.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Yeshivas Boyan failed to file an appeal of the June 9, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Yeshivas Boyan's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, Brooklyn, New York on January 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rabbi David Endzweig, Yeshivas Boyan Tiferes Mordechai Shlomo, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011718.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011718.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Pomona failed to file its appeals of the April 27, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Pomona's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pomona Unified School District, Pomona, California on July 2, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jaramillo, Pomona Unified School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 2, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011721.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011721.txt
  • discretion, be permitted to issue identical determination letters to ``groups'' of the Consolidated Applicants, provided that the factual and substantive similarities between the applicants in a group are clearly explained. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Letters of Appeal filed by the named parties to this Order ARE REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A LIST OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW REMANDED Applicant Application Number Abiline SDA
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011724.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011724.txt
  • revisions to the standards for permissible service changes in the LA Unified Order, we remand these Requests for Review to the Administrator for reconsideration pursuant to the Commission's revised policies. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Requests for Review filed by the named parties to this Order ARE GRANTED AND REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration as provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011725.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011725.txt
  • in posting Saint Jo's FCC Form 470 was solely attributable to USAC, we believe that a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding requirement is warranted in this case. Therefore, we remand Saint Jo's application to SLD for reprocessing and the issuance of an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Jo Independent School District, Saint Jo, Texas IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein and that Saint Jo Independent School District's application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011806.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011806.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed July 6, 2001, by Bristol Bay Borough School District, Naknek, Alaska, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Sherry Kern, Bristol
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011808.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011808.txt
  • Form 471. Based on this record, we affirm SLD's conclusion that the request was for a tariff service unsupported by a multi-year written contract, and that Goshen's failure to file a new FCC Form 470 in Funding Year 3 supporting the request warranted denial of the request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Goshen Community Schools, Goshen, Indiana, on March 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Steven Clason, Goshen Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, dated March 26, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011819.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011819.txt
  • state that ``the level of poverty [by which discounts are determined] shall be measured by the percentage of their student enrollment that is eligible for a free or reduced price lunch . . . .'' Thus, assuming BJA's allegations are accurate, they do not warrant granting relief. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Baltimore Junior Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on April 9, 2001 is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Paul Jean-Pierre, Baltimore Junior Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 9, 2001 (Request for Review). Section 54.719(c)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011820.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011820.txt
  • discount percentage for their application was below the funded discount percentage for Internal connections. Because Egg Harbor's appeal is appropriately denied on these grounds, we need not address the question of whether SLD's application of the 30% policy to Egg Harbor's application was consistent with program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Alfred Savio, Jr., Egg Harbor City Public Schools, Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011821.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011821.txt
  • SPIN for the remaining items of FRN 179922. Therefore, it was inappropriate for SLD to modify the SPIN to Extel for a funding commitment decision that did not contain ``Cat 5/6 wiring, long run portion.'' We find that the SPIN for FRN 179922 should remain Edumedia, Inc. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under section 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by LEAP Academy Charter Schools on August 7, 2000 is GRANTED and is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Clinton J. Boyd, LEAP Academy Charter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011822.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011822.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Salem failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Salem's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Salem School District, Salem, New Hampshire on June 18, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Linda L. MacDonald, Salem School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 18, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011823.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011823.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed March 26, 2001, by the Washington Parish School District, Franklinton, Louisiana, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rebecca Kemp, Washington
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011824.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011824.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by Zeeland Public Schools, Zeeland, Michigan, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Stephen Braunius, Zeeland Public Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011825.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011825.txt
  • In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its ultimate funding is dependent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 7, 1999, by ACCEPT Educational Collaborative, Framingham, Massachusetts, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Michael J. Palladino, Accept Educational Collaborative, to Federal Communications Commission, dated April 7, 1999 (Request for Review). Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011826.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011826.txt
  • However, we also note that FRN 368140 includes a $4.00 charge for an Unpublished Number, which is also an ineligible service. The total ineligible service cost is thus at least $147.50, or 30.5 percent of the $483.00 per month request. We therefore deny the Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Bloomfield Community Schools, Bloomfield, Nebraska on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Gary Marks, Bloomfield Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 26, 2001 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011827.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011827.txt
  • that on May 29, 2001, SLD issued an Administrator's Decision on Appeal indicating that [South Carolina OIR's] appeal has brought forward persuasive information that [South Carolina OIR's] application should be data entered and considered for funding. Therefore, we dismiss South Carolina OIR's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by South Carolina Budget and Control Board Office of Information Resources, Columbia, South Carolina, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from R. Brian Johnson, South Carolina Budget and Control Board
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011877.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011877.txt
  • connections. Because Fort Wayne commingled its requests for discounts for telecommunications services and internal connections within a single funding request, SLD correctly placed the application into the internal connections category for Funding Year 3 funding in order to avoid treating Priority Two services as Priority One services. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Fort Wayne Community School District on July 1, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter of Appeal of Fort Wayne Community School District to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 1,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011878.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011878.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Gallatin failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Gallatin's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Gallatin R-V School District, Gallatin, Missouri on November 7, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeanette Sprague, Gallatin R-V School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 7, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011879.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011879.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Mamaroneck failed to file an appeal of the July 21, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mamaroneck's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mamaroneck Union Free District, Mamaroneck, New York on December 6, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Sarah Tate, Mamaroneck Union Free District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed December 6,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011881.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011881.txt
  • the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Chapel Hill has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver, filed June 22, 2000 by Chapel Hill Independent School District, Tyler, Texas IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rita Simpson, Chapel Hill Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011883.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011883.txt
  • should have construed it as a service substitution request notwithstanding how the applicant captioned the pleading. As such, SLD should have reviewed the service substitution request on its merits. The Division's reversal of SLD's decision and remanding for further consideration of the request was therefore appropriate. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.113 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.113, 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mercer County Area Vocational - Technical School, Mercer, Pennsylvania, on June 1, 2000 is GRANTED for the reasons discussed herein, and REMANDED to the Schools and Libraries Division for further consideration consisted with this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011898.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011898.txt
  • the filing window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that Henry-Senachwine has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Waiver must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed June 23, 2000 by Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District #5, Henry, Illinois IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Beverly Privratsky, Henry-Senachwine Community Unit District 5, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 23,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011899.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011899.txt
  • made on behalf of Knox County Public Library, funding request number (FRN) 454127. Upon our review of the record, however, we find that SLD approved funding for FRN 454127 and such funds were not revoked or suspended. Accordingly, the Division dismisses Intelenet's Request for Review as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Bob G. Carnel, Indiana Intelenet Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011900.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011900.txt
  • the Administrator. Because Monessen failed to file an appeal of the June 21, 2000 and June 28, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Monessen's appeals to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Letter of Appeal. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by School District of the City of Monessen, Monessen, Pennsylvania on January 22, 2001, ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Richard Fantauzzi, School District of the City of Monessen, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011936.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011936.txt
  • an example of an improper request the case of an eligible file server which is also ``built to provide storage functions to supplement personal computers on the network.'' That is precisely the case here, and accordingly, under the Universal Service Order, the entire request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on November 13, 2000 by Cleveland Municipal School District, seeking review of FRN 421840, is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011943.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011943.txt
  • Novell has a request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Novell's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Novell's initial request, Novell may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Novell, Inc., Provo, Utah, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Teri Olsen, Novell, Inc., to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 31, 2001. Letter from Schools and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011944.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011944.txt
  • Mater Dei's FCC Form 471 was filed outside the filing window. The only relief that Mater Dei could have sought was a waiver of the Commission's rules. Having reviewed the merits of Mater Dei's Waiver Request, we find no basis for waiver of our filing window rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey on March 8, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Nancy Giotta, Mater Dei High School, New Monmouth, New Jersey, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011972.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011972.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by Fairland Public School District I-31, Fairland, Oklahoma, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Melissa Bryant, Fairland
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011973.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011973.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed February 20, 2001, by New Plymouth School District No. 372, New Plymouth, Idaho, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Vicki
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011974.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011974.txt
  • decision in White Sulphur Springs and the revised eligible services list, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand Pinellas' application to SLD for further review. We direct SLD to review Pinellas' use of its remote access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Pinellas County Schools on June 1, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review Pinellas' funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the above-stated decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011975.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011975.txt
  • before the allowable contract date. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must review and process each year, we find that it is administratively necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for carefully following program rules. The Division, therefore, denies Preston's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Preston Town County Library, on April 6, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jean Patton, Preston Town County Library, Hot Springs, Montana, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011976.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011976.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Saint Bede's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Saint Bede's initial request, Saint Bede may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Saint Bede The Venerable, Holland, Pennsylvania, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from Mary Boland, Saint Bede The Venerable, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 6, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011977.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011977.txt
  • deadline is warranted. We therefore grant WASD's Waiver Request. We direct SLD to process WASD's FCC Form 471 as timely filed, and if otherwise appropriate, to issue an appropriate Funding Commitment Letter. However, we make no determination as to whether WASD is ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Allegheny School District, Imperial, Pennsylvania on June 30, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and WASD's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011980.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011980.txt
  • it is not ``necessary to transport information all the way to individual classrooms.'' In sum, network monitoring is not an eligible service under program rules. Thus, SLD properly applied the 30% rule in denying Little River's funding request. We, therefore, deny Little River's Request for Review. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by the Little River Unified School District 444, Little River, Kansas, on January 29, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Milt Dougherty, Little River Unified School District, to Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011981.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da011981.txt
  • will grant the appeal so long as the applicant points out the mistake, and demonstrates how SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we find it appropriate to reverse SLD and remand Brockton's application for further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the May 22, 2000, Request for Review filed by Brockton Public Schools, Brockton, Massachusetts, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review Brockton's funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012016.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012016.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, New Paltz fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by New Paltz Central School District, New Paltz, New York, on February 29, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Deborah Brush, New Paltz Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012017.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012017.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Painesville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Painesville City Schools, Painesville, Ohio, on February 28, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from James R. Fodor, Painesville City Local Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012018.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012018.txt
  • funded so long as the ineligible portion is less than 30% of the total. We therefore remand to SLD to determine, in light of Richland Parish's information on appeal and consistent with this decision, what portion of the request is ineligible and to process the request appropriately. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Richland Parish School District, Rayville, Louisiana, on May 10, 2000 is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012019.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012019.txt
  • to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, St. Ignatius Loyola fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Ignatius Loyola Academy, Baltimore, Maryland, on September 27, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jeffrey R. Sindler, Saint Ignatius Loyola Academy, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 27,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012020.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012020.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Stephen/Argyle fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Stephen/Argyle Central School District, Stephen, Minnesota, on February 26, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Melanie K. Stark, Stephen/Argyle Central School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012021.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012021.txt
  • if applicants were permitted to amend their requests after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Wishek's request for funding. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91., 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Wishek Public School, Wishek, North Dakota, on March 16, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Brian Duchscherer, Wishek Public School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 16, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012022.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012022.txt
  • 19, 2000. Yet it is incumbent upon applicants to allow sufficient time to submit their FCC Forms 470, complete the 28-day competitive bidding period, and then submit their FCC Forms 471 within the filing window. For these reasons, the Division denies Yeshiva of Brooklyn's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Yeshiva of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York, on April 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Heshy Arem, Yeshiva of Brooklyn, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 10, 2001 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012023.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012023.txt
  • or agents to whom it gives responsibility for submitting timely and proper requests for discounts on its behalf. Here, Winchendon fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Winchendon School, Winchendon, Massachusetts, on June 30, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from C. Jackson Blair, the Winchendon School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed June 30, 2000 (Waiver
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012024.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Ballard fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Ballard Community School District, Huxley, Iowa, on February 20, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Connie Marker, Ballard Community School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012025.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012025.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Elgin fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Elgin Independent School District, Elgin, Texas, on November 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara Allbright, Elgin Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November 17,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012026.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012026.txt
  • and cites that correct Form 470 in its appeal to SLD. Because this procedure is applicable here, we find that SLD should have granted the appeal. We therefore reverse and remand Service Co-op's application for further consideration of FRN 171379 in light of Form 470 USCN 390330000120972. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on April 14, 2000 by Reg 6 & 8 Sw/Ctrl/W Srvc Co-op, Marshall, Minnesota, is GRANTED and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012027.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012027.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Renaissance fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Renaissance Charter School, Moscow, Idaho on March 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Carol Kampenhout, Renaissance Charter School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed March 20, 2001 (Waiver Request).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012028.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012028.txt
  • request. We are informed by SLD personnel that on March 28, 2001, SLD made the SPIN-change which Cleveland Municipal is seeking here. Because the Division finds that Cleveland Municipal has already received the relief that it is requesting, Cleveland Municipal's Request for Review is dismissed as moot. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Cleveland Municipal School District on November 13, 2000, seeking review of FRN 418921, is DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Letter from Nathaniel Hawthorne, Esq., on behalf of Cleveland Municipal School District, Cleveland Ohio, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012037.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012037.txt
  • RAL on August 23, 1999. Therefore, SLD received the request for corrections 10 days after Hysham received the RAL. As a result, we find that Hysham's request for corrections to the RAL was timely because the corrections were received within two weeks of receipt of the RAL. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the request for review filed by Hysham Public Schools on August 3, 2000, IS GRANTED and that its application IS REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Barbara
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012038.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012038.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed August 15, 2001, by East Greenbush Central Schools, East Greenbush, New York, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Donn F.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012063.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012063.txt
  • "in window" application. On February 2, 2001, SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter to SEED School regarding the requests for discounts at issue in this Request for Review. Thus, upon review of the record, we find it is appropriate to dismiss SEED School's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by SEED School, Washington, DC on April 21, 2000, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Thomas J. Downey, SEED School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 21, 2000 (Request for Review).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012065.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012065.txt
  • SLD could have reasonably ascertained the true nature of the information. Because those facts are evident here, we remand to SLD for a determination of whether DeKalb had a pre-existing contract governing the FRNs at issue, and is eligible for discounts for those FRNs under program rules. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed on June 22, 2000, by DeKalb County School System, Decatur, Georgia, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. We direct the Schools and Libraries Division to review DeKalb's funding application and, if warranted, to issue a revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012085.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012085.txt
  • Letter, whether because of SLD's error or the applicant's, SLD will correct the SPIN upon written request and verification. Here, a written request was made, and we therefore remand this application to SLD to obtain verification and process the SPIN correction in accordance with its procedures. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. §§0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Trussville Public Library, Birmingham, Alabama, on December 14, 1999, IS GRANTED, and this application is remanded to SLD for further action consistent with this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Karen Moody,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012086.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012086.txt
  • Chimes has an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Chimes' Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Chimes' initial appeal, Chimes may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Chimes School, Baltimore, Marlyand, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Martin Lampner, Chimes School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 25, 2000. See Letter from Martin Lampner,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012087.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012087.txt
  • for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, St. Jean Vianney fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by St. Jean Vianney School, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 31, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Patrice A. Robinson, St. Jean Vianney School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012098.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012098.txt
  • request pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Northern Berkshire's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Northern Berkshire's initial request, Northern Berkshire may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, North Adams, Massachusetts, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Request for Review from James J. Brosnan, Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012129.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012129.txt
  • provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. Because the record demonstrates that Bnos Yaakov received mail from SLD at the same address listed in the more detailed letter, we find no reason to deviate from this standard. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed June 28, 2000, by Congregation Bnos Yaakov, Lakewood, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, Congregation
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012130.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012130.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because DeKalb failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss DeKalb's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by DeKalb Independent School District, DeKalb, Texas on September 4, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Timothy Williams, DeKalb Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 4, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012131.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012131.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Estelline failed to file an appeal of the April 14, 2000 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Estelline's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Estelline School District 28-2, Estelline, South Dakota on August 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Kristina Atyeo, Estelline School District 28-2, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 20,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012137.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012137.txt
  • for a retroactive waiver of the 30-day appeal deadline for Funding Year 1 applicants who filed untimely appeals, E-Rate Central's request that we also authorize new appeal funding procedures for these applicants is moot. We therefore dismiss this part of the Request for Waiver as well. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed E-Rate Central, Plandome, New York, on August 12, 1999, is DENIED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Winston E. Himsworth, E-Rate Central, to Federal Communications Commission, filed August 12, 1999 (Request for Waiver).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012185.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012185.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Watonwan fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Watonwan County Library, St. James, Minnesota, on July 11, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Cheryl Bjoin, Watonwan County Library, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 11, 2000
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012219.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012219.txt
  • received over 36,000 applications. It is impractical, if not impossible, for SLD to review each application and notify applicants of errors prior to the close of the filing window. The Division, therefore, finds that the applicant violated the 28-day waiting period and denies Washington's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, on April 20, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David L. Bringman, Washington Local Schools, Toledo, Ohio, to the Federal Communications Commission, filed April
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012226.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012226.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 11, 2001, by City of Cameron, Cameron, Texas, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Janet Sheguit, City of Cameron,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012227.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012227.txt
  • a decision issued by the Administrator. Because Sealy failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sealy's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sealy Independent School District, Sealy, Texas on September 10, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Rosa Ojeda, Sealy Independent School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 10, 2001.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012228.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012228.txt
  • 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 7, 2001, by Shelby City Schools, Shelby, Ohio, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Keith Rittenhouse, Shelby City Schools,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012229.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012229.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because St. Cecelia failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss St. Cecelia's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by St. Cecelia School, Clearwater, Florida on September 12, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Ellen Patrick, St. Cecelia School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 12, 2001. Letter
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012230.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012230.txt
  • through the Tech Centers, had actual authority to act on behalf of the school districts listed in the consortium. We, therefore, remand Clackamas' application to SLD for further fact-finding. However, we make no determination has to whether any members of the consortium are ultimately entitled to discounts. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, on October 13, 2000, IS REMANDED to SLD for further review consistent with this opinion. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Clackamas Education Service District, Marylhurst, Oregon, to Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012241.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012241.txt
  • after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for funding exceed the annual funding cap. Therefore, we conclude that SLD properly denied Haslett's request for funding and we therefore deny Haslett's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, on February 28, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Martell, Haslett Public Schools, Haslett, Michigan, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 28, 2001 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012275.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012275.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Sacred Heart failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Sacred Heart's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Sacred Heart Elementary School, San Francisco, California on September 11, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Savita Sahi, Sacred Heart Elementary School, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 11,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012276.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012276.txt
  • 127047 because the record shows that Sperry failed to complete this application. Because there is no completed FCC Form 471 for application number 127045, and because Sperry has failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would so necessitate, a waiver of the filing window is not warranted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed by Sperry Public Schools, Sperry, Oklahoma, on October 7, 1999 IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from David Jobe, Sperry Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October 7, 1999 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012290.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012290.txt
  • that SLD could have determined the city name of the billed entity. As a result, in these particular circumstances, we do not believe that the omission of the city of the billed entity in Block 1, item 4a should have prevented SLD from data entering AEPPR's application. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed April 9, 2001 by Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, IS GRANTED and REMANDED to the extent provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Eduardo Delgado, Asociacion
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012292.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012292.txt
  • including the 28-day competitive bidding requirements. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD reviews and processes each year, it is administratively necessary to place on the applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures. The Division, therefore, denies NYMA's Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91. 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by New York Military Academy, Hudson, New York, on April 30, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau APPENDIX A FUNDING YEAR 2 DATE EVENT January 7, 1999 File FCC Form 470 FUNDING
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012328.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012328.txt
  • responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Bear Lake fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Bear Lake County Library District, Montpelier, Idaho, on November 3, 2000 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Mary Nate, Bear Lake County Library District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed November
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012329.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012329.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Mississippi DOE failed to file an appeal of the July 8, 1999 Funding Commitment Decision Letters within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Mississippi DOE's appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Mississippi Department of Education, Mississippi DOE, Mississippi on April 17, 2000, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Amory School District, Greenwood Springs, MS; Coahoma County School District, Clarksdale, MS; Lee County School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012330.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012330.txt
  • website was incorrect. Thus, we find that SLD's posting of an incorrect zip code contributed to the untimely filing by West Las Vegas of its FCC Form 471. We therefore conclude that West Las Vegas has demonstrated special circumstances upon which to grant its waiver request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by West Las Vegas Schools, Las Vegas, New Mexico, on June 26, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein. We direct SLD to process West Las Vegas's FCC Form 471 as timely filed within the filing window. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012331.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012331.txt
  • the requests in Henry County's FCC Form 471 only posted a request for telecommunications services. The FRN at issue, FRN 276939, requests discounted internal connections. Because Henry County failed to post the service for which it seeks discounts, it did not satisfy the Commission's competitive bidding requirements. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Henry County Board of Education, Abbeville, Alabama, on October 25, 1999, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Neil Dodson, Henry County Board of Education, to Federal Communications Commission, filed October
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012332.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012332.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Midland fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Midland School District, Pleasant Plains, Arkansas, on February 15, 2001 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Jim LaRue, Midland School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed February 15, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012333.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012333.txt
  • assume responsibility for timely submission of its application materials if it wishes to be considered within the window. Here, Montville fails to present good cause as to why it could not timely file its application. We therefore find no basis for waiving the filing window deadline. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by the Montville Township Public Schools, Montville, New Jersey, on March 23, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Dominic J. Butler, Montville Township Public Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012362.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012362.txt
  • an appeal pending before the Administrator, we dismiss Center SD's Request for Review to the Commission without prejudice. Once the Administrator has issued its decision on Center SD's initial appeal, it may then appeal to the Commission if it believes such appeal is warranted at that time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Center School District, Kansas City, Missouri, on July 31, 2000 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from Bruce Rehmer, Center School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012372.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012372.txt
  • Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Elkhart has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Request for Review must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review, filed July 10, 2000 by Elkhart Community Schools, Elkhart, Indiana IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Robert Woods, Elkhart Community Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed July 10, 2000 (Request for
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012398.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012398.txt
  • issued by the Administrator. Because Belt Schools failed to file an appeal of the July 23, 2001 Funding Commitment Decision Letter within the requisite 30-day appeal period, we affirm SLD's decision to dismiss Belt Schools' appeal to SLD as untimely and deny the instant Request for Review. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed by Belt Schools, Great Falls, Montana on September 25, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Tom Glover, Belt Schools, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 25, 2001. Letter from Schools
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012399.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012399.txt
  • window. Instead, the burden of ensuring that complete and accurate information is provided on the correct forms properly rests with applicants themselves. We therefore conclude that, under these circumstances, Garfield has failed to make a showing warranting relief and, therefore, its Waiver Request must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Waiver filed April 17, 2000 by Garfield School District, Garfield, New Jersey IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert, Deputy Chief Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau Letter from Raymond Hryczyk, Garfield School District, to Federal Communications Commission, filed April 17, 2000 (Request
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012400.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012400.txt
  • days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed. Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30-day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review filed September 28, 2001, by Hazelwood School District, Florissant, Missouri, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Robert J. Wukitsch, Hazelwood School
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012401.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da012401.txt
  • SLD should have notified Lettie Jensen of the signature deficiency in the form in time for Lettie Jensen to submit an in-window FCC Form 471 that complied with the competitive bidding rules. We therefore further find that good cause exists to grant Lettie Jensen's Waiver Request. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 54.722(a), that the Waiver Request filed by Lettie W. Jensen Library, Amherst, Wisconsin, on February 26, 2001 IS GRANTED to the extent provide herein, and Lettie Jensen's application is REMANDED to SLD for further consideration in light of this decision. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01073.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/fcc01073.txt
  • of the applicants; (2) the omitted information could be easily discerned by SLD through examination of other information included in the application; and (3) the application is otherwise substantially complete. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.719 and 54.722, that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Review filed on July 11, 2000, by Naperville Community Unit School District 203, Naperville, Illinois, is REMANDED to the Schools and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd091005.html
  • ). Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Adopted: 10/02/2009 by ORDER. (DA No. 09-2165). MB [35]DA-09-2165A1.doc [36]DA-09-2165A1.pdf [37]DA-09-2165A1.txt HIGH-COST UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT, FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. Dismissed Centennial's petition for waiver. (Dkt No. 05-337 ). Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 10/02/2009 by ORDER. (DA No. 09-2150). WCB [38]DA-09-2150A1.doc [39]DA-09-2150A1.pdf [40]DA-09-2150A1.txt REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 54.722(A) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES FOR REVIEW OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY DECISION ON HIGH COST SUPPORT MECHANISM BENEFICIARY APPEAL. Denied Centennial's request for reversal of a decision by the Universal Service Administrative Company to recover universal service interstate common line support from Centennial. (Dkt No. 96-45 ). Action by: Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted: 10/02/2009 by ORDER. (DA No. 09-2151).
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1270A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1270A1.pdf
  • the foregoing reasons, we deny the Request for Review and remand the relevant applications to USAC to continue the commitment adjustment recovery actions. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review filed by Send Technologies, L.L.C., on January 19, 2004 and March 22, 2004 ARE DENIED and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED to USAC for further processing consistent with this Order. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1- 4 and 254
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/pendproceed.html
  • 2008 and 2009 FCC Forms 499-A.The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a request by Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone Inc. for review of USAC's management response to the independent auditor's report that evaluated the company's compliance with the requirements of the high-cost universal service program from July 1, 2007 thru June 30, 200 8 .Sections:54.719(c), 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commissions Rules (petition filed Oct. 21, 2010). CC DKT No. 08-71 [162]DA-10-2100 December 1, 2010 December 16, 2010 IP Telcom, Inc. Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on IP Telcoms request that the Commission direct USAC to waive the revision deadline and permit IP Telcom to amend its 2008 and 2009 FCC Forms 499-A. CC DKT
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/Archives/highcost2006archive.html
  • regarding certain aspects of the 2006 Contribution Methodology Reform Order and previous Commission and Bureau-level Orders. Comments Due: September 11, 2006 and Reply Comments Due: September 26, 2006. [70]Word | [71]Acrobat 8/7/06 Order: The Commission grant requests for review filed by Darien Telephone Company, Inc., Logal elephone Cooperative, Inc., and Roanoke & Botetourt Telephone Company pursuant to sections 54.719 and 54.722 of the Commission's rules. [72]Word | [73]Acrobat July 2006 Releases 7/25/06 Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on the petition of Gorham Telephone Company, Inc., and Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., to waive the study area boundary freeze, as codified, in Part 36, and Gorham Telephone Company's request for waiver of section 69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's rules. Comments
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/highcost.html
  • d/b/a Innovatitive Telephone Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a request by Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone Inc. for review of USAC's management response to the independent auditor's report that evaluated the company's compliance with the requirements of the high-cost universal service program from July 1, 2007 thru June 30, 200 8 .Sections:54.719(c), 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commissions Rules (petition filed Oct. 21, 2010). Public Notice [227]Word | [228]PDF 11/1/2010 Syringa Wireless, LLC Order: In this order, the Bureau grants a request by Syringa Wireless, LLC (Syringa) for a waiver of the universal service high-cost filing deadline set forth in sections 54.307(c) of the Commissions rules. We conclude that a waiver is warranted because Syringa
• http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/welcome.html
  • d/b/a Innovative Telephone Public Notice: The Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a request by Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Innovative Telephone Inc. for review of USAC's management response to the independent auditor's report that evaluated the company's compliance with the requirements of the high-cost universal service program from July 1, 2007 thru June 30, 200 8 .Sections:54.719(c), 54.721 and 54.722 of the Commissions Rules (petition filed Oct. 21, 2010). [930]Word [931]PDF October 2010 10/28/2010 Cornerstones of Care Order: In this order, we address 10 appeals of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) denying requests for funding under the E-rate program (more formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support program) on the ground that the consortia