**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, DC 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Request for Review of the )

Decision of the )

Universal Service Administrator by )

)

City of Newport News ) File No. NEC.471.12-16-99.2700001

Newport News, Virginia )

)

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: November 26, 2002 Released: November 27, 2002**

By the Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau:

1.  The Telecommunications Access Policy Division (Division) has under
    consideration a Request for Review filed by City of Newport News
    (Newport News), Newport News, Virginia.[^1] Newport News seeks
    review of a decision by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of
    the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator), which
    rejected Newport News' Funding Year 2000 application for discounts
    under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism
    on the grounds that Newport News failed to sign the certification
    page.[^2] For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Request for
    Review.

2.  In its Request for Review, Newport News argues that its failure to
    sign the certification page was not an omission of "substance"
    because no information was omitted.[^3] It further argues that
    requiring an applicant to sign the application is illogical because
    "no applicant will be bound to . . . the actual receipt and
    expenditure of funds . . . until that applicant becomes a recipient
    of these grant funds."[^4]

3.  We have reviewed the record before us and conclude that SLD properly
    rejected Newport News' FCC Form 471. The Wireline Competition
    Bureau, formerly the Common Carrier Bureau, has previously affirmed
    the requirement of a signature in Block 6 of the FCC Form 471 as a
    minimum processing standard.[^5] Davis has presented no evidence
    that leads to a departure from this standard. We reject the
    contention that the signature requirement is illogical and that its
    omission is not significant. We have previously held that signature
    certification is fundamental to the administration of the SLD
    program.[^6]

4.  SLD relies on the signature certification to establish the authority
    of the signer to represent the applicant. Signature certifications
    ultimately satisfy the program\'s policy objective of binding the
    applicants and service providers to the program requirements.
    Therefore, we find that the signature certification requirement is
    essential in that it protects the program from fraud and waste,
    serves as an additional means of holding applicants accountable for
    their representations, and assists in the efficient administration
    of the program. Newport News concedes that it failed to take this
    important step to complete its application. By failing to submit a
    signature certification, Newport News omitted the legally binding
    act that signifies compliance with program rules. Therefore, its
    application was incomplete and ineffective, for lack of a certifying
    signature. We have repeatedly affirmed SLD's practice of rejecting
    such applications.[^7] We therefore find no error in SLD's rejection
    of Newport News' application without contacting Newport News to
    obtain a new signature page.

5.  Newport News also argues that it has a record of responsible
    participation in the universal service support mechanism, and
    asserts that, therefore, SLD should have processed the application
    while contacting Newport News to obtain a new signature page.[^8]
    However, Newport News' compliance with program requirements in other
    applications does not excuse its failure to sign the application at
    issue.[^9]

6.  Newport News also notes that its application was returned after the
    filing window had closed, ensuring that Newport News would not be
    able to correct it.[^10] 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.[^11] The burden of ensuring that an application is complete
    and accurate properly rests with the applicants themselves.

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 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

[^1]: Letter from Ed Maroney, City of Newport News, to Federal
    Communications Commission, filed January 23, 2002 (Request for
    Review).

[^2]: *See* Request for Review; *see also* Letter from Schools and
    Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to
    Gaddis Key, Newport News Public Schools, dated February 16, 2000;
    Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Gaddis Key, Newport News Public Schools,
    dated October 26, 2001. 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).

[^3]: Request for Review at 2.

[^4]: *Id.*

[^5]: *Request for Review by South Barber Unified School District 255,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.*,
    File No. SLD-158897, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 16 FCC
    Rcd 18435 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001) (*Barber Order*).

[^6]: *Request for Review by New Hartford Central School District
    Federal Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board of
    Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc*., File
    No. SLD-007628, CC Dockets Nos. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 16 FCC Rcd
    19329 (Com. Car. Bur. 2001), para. 6; *see also* *Barber Order*,
    para. 6 ("We wish to underscore the importance of the signature
    certification on the FCC Form 471.").

[^7]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Request for Review by Davis School District,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.*,
    File No. SLD-223665, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 6491 (Com. Car. Bur. 2002) (*Davis Order*).

[^8]: Request for Review at 2-3.

[^9]: *Davis Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 6494, para. 10.

[^10]: Request for Review at 2.

[^11]: *Request for Review by St. Mary's School, Federal-State Joint
    Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board of Directors of the
    National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.*, File No. SLD-261967,
    CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 13389, para. 2
    (Com. Car. Bur. 2002).