**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, DC 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Request for Review of the )

Decision of the )

Universal Service Administrator by )

)

Locust Valley Library ) File No. SLD-265734

Locust Valley, New York )

)

Federal-State Joint 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 14, 2003 Released: January 15, 2003**

By the Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau:

1.  The Telecommunications Access Policy Division has under
    consideration a Request for Review filed by Locust Valley Library
    (Locust), Locust Valley, New York, seeking review of a decision of
    the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service
    Administrative Company (Administrator).[^1] Specifically, Locust
    requests review of a determination that it failed to file a
    completed application for universal service support within the
    filing window for Funding Year 2001.[^2] For the reasons set forth
    below, we deny Locust's Request for Review.

2.  Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism,
    eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible
    schools and libraries, may apply for discounts for eligible
    telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal
    connections.[^3] In order to receive discounts on eligible services,
    the Commission's rules require that the applicant submit to SLD a
    completed FCC Form 470, in which the applicant sets forth its
    technological needs and the services for which it seeks
    discounts.[^4] Once the applicant has complied with the Commission's
    competitive bidding requirements and entered into an agreement for
    eligible services, it must file an FCC Form 471 application to
    notify the Administrator of the services that have been ordered, the
    carrier with whom the applicant has entered an agreement, and an
    estimate of funds needed to cover the discounts to be given for
    eligible services.[^5]

3.  The Commission's rules require that the applicant file a completed
    FCC Form 471 by the filing window deadline to be considered pursuant
    to the funding priorities for in-window applicants.[^6] In order to
    have successfully completed the submission of the FCC Form 471
    application in Funding Year 2001, applicants who filed
    electronically must also have completed and mailed to SLD the Item
    21 description of services, and completed and sent either
    electronically or by mail a Block 6 certification.[^7] Prior to
    Funding Year 2001, the deadline by which these items had to be
    received by SLD to be considered within the window was later than
    the deadline for the filing of the FCC Form 471, so that applicants
    could file electronically on the last day of the filing window, and
    mail their certifications and attachments thereafter. However,
    because in previous years the delivery of a number of applications
    was significantly delayed by the postal service, SLD, starting in
    Funding Year 2001, directed that all FCC Forms 471 would be deemed
    filed when postmarked, rather than when received by SLD.[^8] The
    last day of the filing window for Funding Year 2001 was January 18,
    2001.[^9]

4.  Locust submitted its Funding Year 2001 application on January 16,
    2001, making one request for discounted telecommunications
    services.[^10] However, it did not submit an Item 21 attachment
    describing the service.[^11] On August 6, 2001, SLD sent Locust a
    postcard stating that the application, certifications, or Item 21
    attachment was postmarked after the close of the filing window and
    that the application would therefore not be considered for
    funding.[^12] On August 20, 2001, Locust appealed this decision to
    SLD.[^13] On October 25, 2001, SLD issued a letter to Locust Valley
    in connection with its application.[^14] SLD noted that it had no
    evidence that Locus had submitted an Item 21 attachment with its
    application but stated that it would provide an additional
    opportunity for the applicant to submit an Item 21 attachment if,
    among other things, the applicant was willing to certify that it
    had, in fact, submitted an Item 21 attachment with its
    application.[^15] SLD further stated that, "\[i\]f you did NOT
    include an Item #21 Attachment with your original application, no
    action is required and your application will be denied for failing
    to meet the filing requirements."[^16] With regard to the pending
    appeal, SLD stated: "We have received your appeal concerning this
    issue for the application referenced above. Because you have the
    opportunity to resolve your issue through the above process, your
    current appeal will not be addressed."[^17]

5.  Because Locust had not originally submitted an Item 21 attachment
    with its application, it did not resubmit the Item 21 attachment at
    that time, and instead filed the pending Request for Review.[^18]
    Subsequently, SLD issued a letter formally rejecting Locust's
    application for lack of an Item 21 attachment.[^19]

6.  In its Request for Review, Locust concedes that it did not provide
    an Item 21 attachment with its Funding Year 2001 application but
    asserts that, when it was contacted on April 6, 2001 by SLD to
    address an unrelated issue, no mention was made of the absence of
    the Item 21 attachment and Locust assumed that the application was
    otherwise correct.[^20] Locust also objects to the denial of its
    telecommunications service request for failure to attach a copy of a
    telephone bill, asserting that this error is too minor to warrant
    funding denial.[^21]

7.  Because Locust never submitted an Item 21 attachment for its
    application, we find that SLD correctly rejected Locust's
    application. Neither the limited nature of the error nor SLD's
    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.[^22]

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 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

[^1]: Letter from Salvatore Marino, Locust Valley Library, to Federal
    Communications Commission, filed January 11, 2002 (Review for
    Review). 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).

[^2]: *See* Request for Review. Previously, this funding period would be
    referred to as Funding Year 4. Funding periods are now described by
    the year in which the funding period starts. Thus the funding period
    which began on July 1, 2001 and ends on June 30, 2002, previously
    described as Funding Year 4, and is now called Funding Year 2001.
    The funding period which began on July 1, 2002 and ends on June 30,
    2003, previously described as Funding Year 5, and is now called
    Funding Year 2002, and so on.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.501--54.503.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(c), 54.507(g).

[^7]: Block 6 is the section of the FCC Form 471 where applicants must
    sign the form and make certifications required under program rules.
    *See* FCC Form 471, Schools and Libraries Universal Service,
    Services Ordered and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (October
    2000).

[^8]: *See* SLD website, What's New (November 2, 2000)
    \<[http://www.sl/universalservice.org/whatsnew/110200.asp#110200]{.underline}\>
    (SLD Year 4 Change Notice).

[^9]: *See* SLD website, FCC Form 471 Window Opens for Year 4 Applicants
    (November 2, 2000),
    \<<http://www.sl.universalservice.org/whatsnew/112000.asp#110200>\>.

[^10]: FCC Form 471, Locust Valley Library, filed January 16, 2001
    (Locust Form 471).

[^11]: Request for Review.

[^12]: Postcard from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Salvatore Marino, Locust Valley Library,
    dated August 6, 2001.

[^13]: Letter from Salvatore Marino, Locust Valley Library, to Schools
    and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company,
    filed August 20, 2001.

[^14]: Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Salvatore Marino, Locust Valley Library,
    dated October 25, 2001 (Item 21 Letter).

[^15]: *Id.* at 1.

[^16]: *Id.* at 2.

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *See* Request for Review.

[^19]: Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Salvatore Marino, Locust Valley Library,
    dated March 14, 2002.

[^20]: Request for Review at 1.

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: *See Request for Review by Anderson School Staatsburg,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.*,
    File No. SLD-133664, CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 25610, para. 8 (Com. Car. Bur. 2000).