**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, DC 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Request for Review of the )

Decision of the )

Universal Service Administrator by )

)

United Talmudical Academy ) File No. SLD-105791

Brooklyn, 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 4, 2000 Released: January 7, 2000**

By the Commission:

1.  This Order grants in part and dismisses in part the Letter of Appeal
    of United Talmudical Academy, Brooklyn, New York (UTA), that was
    received by the Commission on August 12, 1999. UTA's Letter of
    Appeal seeks review of a decision of the Schools and Libraries
    Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC
    or Administrator), dated July 14, 1999.[^1] UTA seeks review solely
    with respect to SLD's denial of UTA's request for funding of basic
    voice telephone service. We remand UTA's application to SLD for
    further determination with respect to UTA's request for funding of
    basic voice telephone service. Furthermore, we dismiss UTA's request
    for an opportunity to review SLD documents pertaining to its
    application.

    **BACKGROUND**

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 on eligible
    telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal
    connections.[^2] In order to receive discounts on eligible services,
    schools must file certain information with the Administrator.
    Specifically, the Commission\'s rules require that an applicant
    submit to the Administrator a completed FCC Form 470, in which the
    applicant sets forth the school\'s technological needs and the
    services for which it seeks discounts.[^3] Once the school has
    signed a contract 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 school has signed a
    contract, and an estimate of the funds needed to cover the
    discounted portion of the price of the eligible services.[^4]

3.  On the FCC Form 470, among other things, applicants must attest that
    any support they receive is conditional upon their "securing access
    to all of the resources, including computers, training, software,
    maintenance, and electrical connections necessary to use the
    services purchased effectively."[^5] On the FCC Form 471, among
    other things, applicants must certify that they have secured access
    to "to all of the resources, including computers, training,
    software, maintenance, and electrical connections necessary to make
    effective use of the services purchased as well as to pay the
    discounted charges for eligible services."[^6] These certifications
    are consistent with the requirements set forth in the Commission's
    May 8, 1997 *Universal Service Order*. In that order, the Commission
    stated that applicants for schools and libraries discounts would be
    required to certify in their requests for services that "all of the
    necessary funding in the current funding year has been budgeted and
    will have been approved to pay for the 'non-discount' portion of
    requested connections and services as well as any necessary
    hardware, software, and to undertake the necessary staff training
    required in time to use the services effectively . . . . "[^7]

4.  Administration of the schools and libraries support mechanism is the
    responsibility of the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of USAC,
    under the oversight of the Schools and Libraries Committee of
    USAC.[^8] Under the rules adopted in the Commission's *Eighth
    Reconsideration Order*, the Schools and Libraries Committee's
    functions include "development of applications and associated
    instructions," "review of bills for services that are submitted by
    schools and libraries," and "administration of the application
    process, including activities to ensure compliance with Federal
    Communications Commission rules and regulations."[^9] Thus, under
    the *Eighth Reconsideration Order*, the Commission vested in the
    Schools and Libraries Committee and the Schools and Libraries
    Division the responsibility for administering the application
    process for the universal service support mechanism for eligible
    schools and libraries. Moreover, under the Commission's rules, it is
    the responsibility of SLD, subject to the oversight of the Schools
    and Libraries Committee, to process and review each FCC Form 470 and
    FCC Form 471 filed with SLD to ensure that the funding applicant is
    in compliance with applicable rules and regulations of the
    Commission.

5.  On April 13, 1998, UTA filed with SLD an FCC Form 471, requesting
    funding of various telecommunications and advanced services for Year
    1 of the schools and libraries support mechanism in the amount of
    approximately \$3.4 million. By correspondence dated January 13,
    1999, SLD requested additional information from UTA regarding its
    application.[^10] In particular, SLD inquired about UTA's plans for
    making use of a high bandwidth network, UTA's plans for staff
    training, apparent disparities between the number of personal
    computers that UTA had acquired and planned to acquire and the
    capacity of UTA's planned network, and UTA's requests for discounts
    on wireless service from multiple providers.[^11] SLD's information
    request also sought descriptions or diagrams of the placement and
    use of several network components listed in Item 17 of UTA's
    application.[^12] In response, UTA explained that it sought to give
    teleconferencing capacity to each of its 542 classrooms, that most
    of its teachers would not require more than 6-10 hours of formal
    training, and that it had signed long-term service contracts with
    multiple wireless service providers at different times.[^13] UTA's
    response also gave an account of the placement and number of
    components listed in Item 17 of its funding application.[^14] In its
    Funding Commitment Letter, dated February 26, 1999, SLD denied UTA's
    request in its entirety. In support of its decision, SLD stated
    that, after careful review of the information UTA submitted, SLD had
    determined that UTA had not secured access to all of the resources,
    including computers, training, software, maintenance, and electrical
    connections, necessary to make effective use of the services for
    which UTA sought discounts.[^15]

6.  On March 29, 1999, UTA filed with SLD a Letter of Appeal requesting
    review of SLD's denial of funding with respect to certain items in
    its original FCC Form 471.[^16] UTA's Letter of Appeal to SLD
    indicated that, after reviewing its original FCC Form 471, UTA was
    modifying its technology plan for the 1999-2000 funding year.[^17]
    Furthermore, for the 1998-1999 funding year, UTA sought review only
    of SLD's denial of its requests for funding of: (1) UTA's existing
    telecommunications services; (2) a PBX system; and (3) two computer
    networks, reducing the amount of UTA's request to \$238,451.[^18] In
    its Decision on Appeal, SLD again denied UTA's remaining funding
    requests. In support of its decision, SLD stated that its review for
    necessary resources had not been not applied to individual funding
    request numbers (FRNs), but rather to the entire funding application
    UTA submitted in its FCC Form 471.[^19] After SLD issued its
    Decision on Appeal, UTA requested additional information from SLD
    regarding its denial of UTA's requests for discounts.[^20] By letter
    dated August 9, 1999, SLD responded to UTA's information
    request.[^21] Specifically, SLD's response stated that its review
    indicated UTA's application suffered from deficiencies in the areas
    of hardware, professional development, software and maintenance,
    with the numbers submitted by UTA deviating by as much as 20 percent
    from SLD's projections of the resources necessary to make effective
    use of the services for which UTA had requested discounts.[^22]

# UTA'S LETTER OF APPEAL

7.  On August 12, 1999, UTA filed with the Commission a Letter of Appeal
    seeking review of SLD's Decision on Appeal.[^23] In this Letter of
    Appeal that is currently before us, UTA limits its appeal solely to
    review of SLD's denial of funding of basic voice telephone
    service.[^24] UTA also requests that, prior to making a final
    determination on its appeal, the Commission give UTA an opportunity
    to review all of SLD's records pertaining to UTA's application.[^25]

8.  In its Letter of Appeal to the Commission, UTA raises several
    objections to SLD's Funding Commitment Letter and Decision on
    Appeal. In particular, UTA objects to the denial of UTA's
    application based on SLD's finding that UTA lacks the necessary
    resources to make effective use of the services requested. UTA deems
    this finding by SLD "perfunctory . . . \[and\] without
    explanation."[^26] UTA also objects to SLD's denial of UTA's entire
    funding request based on a determination that a portion of UTA's
    application failed to meet the requirement of necessary resources to
    make effective use of the services requested.[^27] In support of its
    denial of the entire funding request, SLD's Decision on Appeal
    states, "The necessary resources standard is one that is applied
    against the entire application, not to individual Funding Request
    Numbers (FRNs). This policy is based on the concept that the
    application as a whole must pass scrutiny, without regard to whether
    resources can be allocated differently to cover a portion of the
    expenses."[^28] UTA objects to this methodology as "patently
    unfair," regarding it as illogical that a funding request under one
    Funding Request Number (FRN) could be denied because of problems in
    another FRN on the same FCC Form 471, when the former FRN would have
    received funding if it had been placed on a separate FCC Form
    471.[^29] UTA also contends that SLD's denial of entire applications
    based on irregularities within individual FRNs is not based on any
    Commission rule or regulation.[^30]

    **USAC'S LETTER**

9.  On December 20, 1999, USAC filed with the Commission a letter
    commenting on particular issues raised in UTA's Letter of Appeal and
    summarizing the method by which SLD reviews applications for
    necessary resources in order "to ensure that the record before the
    Commission is developed fully...."[^31] In support of its authority
    to review funding requests for necessary resources, generally, and
    of its method of performing such review, in particular, USAC cites
    to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^32] particular
    Commission orders and rules implementing the schools and libraries
    support mechanism for eligible schools and libraries, as well as the
    necessary resources certification contained in the
    Commission-approved FCC Form 471.[^33] At the outset, USAC notes
    that section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Act limits discounts to services
    provided in response to *bona fide* requests made for services to be
    used for educational purposes.[^34] According to USAC, the necessary
    resources certification requirement, as adopted by the Commission
    and applied by USAC, is critical to achieving compliance with
    section 254(h)(1)(B) by helping to ensure that requests for
    discounted services are, in fact, *bona fide* requests and that
    applicants can make use of those services for their intended
    educational purpose.[^35] USAC also points to the Commission's
    mandate that SLD take steps to curb waste, fraud, and abuse of funds
    in the schools and libraries support mechanism.[^36] USAC asserts
    that reviewing applicants' necessary resources certifications
    constitutes SLD's primary means of guarding against waste, fraud,
    and abuse of funds under the schools and libraries support
    mechanism.[^37]

10. USAC defends the method by which SLD performs its necessary
    resources review (i.e., reviewing the adequacy of support resources
    against the totality of an applicant's funding requests and
    rejecting all funding requests in a given year where SLD finds
    inaccuracies or deficiencies with respect to an applicant's
    necessary resources certification) as the only practical way to give
    effect to the language of the Commission's rules and orders
    governing necessary resources certifications.[^38] According to
    USAC, performing the necessary resources review on an FRN-by-FRN
    basis, in essence, would require SLD to "stand in the shoes" of the
    applicant.[^39] SLD would be put in this untenable position, USAC
    argues, by having to determine for the applicant the particular
    funding requests for which the applicant has the necessary resources
    and determine, thereby, how to allocate an applicant's available
    resources among particular funding requests.[^40] According to USAC,
    this would undermine the Commission's stated goal of allowing
    applicants to determine the types of services they need and would
    "significantly expand" the work and associated costs of
    administering the program.[^41]

11. Noting that the Schools and Libraries Committee of the USAC Board of
    Directors had considered the question of whether support for basic
    telephone service should be provided where an applicant had failed
    SLD's necessary resources review, USAC states that the Committee
    concluded that all funding requests associated with that applicant
    should be denied.[^42] Should the Commission reverse this decision,
    USAC urges that the Commission provide an exception from SLD's
    current necessary resources review procedure only with respect to
    basic telephone service that is provided on a stand-alone
    (unbundled) basis and where the request appears under a separate
    FRN, rather than as part of a grouping with other services under the
    same FRN.[^43] USAC notes that providing such an exception for
    applicant requests for basic telephone service would not require SLD
    to substitute its judgment for that of the applicant or involve the
    same level of entanglement in an applicant's technology plan as
    discussed above, insofar as applicants requesting only discounted
    telephone service are not required under the current FCC Form 471 to
    submit a technology plan.

12. Finally, USAC takes issue with UTA's characterization of SLD's
    necessary resources review methodology as "patently unfair" to the
    extent that UTA's characterization is premised, according to USAC,
    on UTA's misapprehension that a funding request under one FRN may be
    denied because of necessary resources deficiencies in another FRN on
    the same FCC Form 471, but the former FRN could have received
    funding if it had been placed on a separate FCC Form 471.[^44] In
    response to UTA's assertion, USAC states that it is not SLD's
    practice to perform its necessary resources review on an
    application-by-application basis (i.e., only with respect to those
    FRNs listed together on the same FCC Form 471).[^45] Rather, USAC
    states that it is SLD's practice to consider concurrently all of an
    applicant's funding requests for a given funding year, including
    those listed on different FCC Form 471s.[^46] Under this concurrent
    review, SLD denies all funding requests, including funding requests
    submitted on separate FCC Form 471s, if any of an applicant's
    funding requests fails to pass SLD's review for necessary resources.

    **UTA'S LETTER**

13. In a letter dated December 27, 1999, UTA restates certain arguments
    raised in its March 29, 1999 Letter of Appeal with SLD and its
    August 10, 1999 Letter of Appeal with the Commission. [^47] In
    addition, UTA comments on the December 20, 1999 USAC letter. In
    particular, UTA suggests that the policy adopted by the Schools and
    Libraries Committee of the USAC Board, pursuant to which SLD denies
    the entirety of an applicant's funding requests where a necessary
    resources certification is inaccurate and/or inadequate, is not
    mandated by the Commission's rules, and harms the chances for
    funding of schools like UTA "whose annual budget is met through
    fundraising efforts and philanthropic donations."[^48] UTA also
    contends that USAC's stated justification for its necessary
    resources review policy does not apply to the instant Letter of
    Appeal, inasmuch as UTA seeks review only of the denial of its
    request for discounted basic telephone service. [^49] SLD should
    grant this request, UTA argues, given that doing so will not require
    SLD to "step into the shoes" of UTA, and because UTA has
    demonstrated adequate resources to support this service. [^50]

    **DISCUSSION**

14. The necessary resources certification requires applicants to examine
    their technology needs and available technological and budgetary
    resources before making funding requests, in order to ensure that
    applicants will be able to make effective use of any discounted
    services they receive. We conclude that the review of these
    certifications by SLD to determine whether applicants have the
    necessary resources to make effective use of the services that they
    request is an integral part of SLD's responsibility for reviewing
    funding applications to ensure compliance with statutory
    requirements and Commission rules. We find that SLD's review of
    applicants' necessary resources certifications also is an important
    means by which SLD implements the Commission's directive to SLD to
    take steps to curb waste, fraud, and abuse in the schools and
    libraries universal service support mechanism.[^51]

15. With one exception, we find that the method by which SLD performs
    its necessary resources review, at the applicant level and applied
    against all of an applicant's funding requests within a funding
    year, constitutes a reasonable application of the Commission's rules
    under the schools and libraries support mechanism. Our rules do not
    require SLD to perform its review of necessary resources
    certifications at the individual funding request level. The
    Commission's rules require applicants to certify that "all of the
    necessary funding in the current funding year has been budgeted and
    approved to pay for the 'non-discount' portion of requested
    connections and services as well as any necessary hardware or
    software, and to undertake the necessary staff training required to
    use the services effectively . . . ."[^52] This certification does
    not distinguish individual FRNs, but instead applies to "all of the
    necessary funding in the current funding year" and to all of an
    applicant's "requested connections and services." Upon Commission
    adoption of this rule, an applicant reasonably should have expected
    that its necessary resources certification would apply to all of the
    applicant's requested connections and services within a funding year
    and that false or inaccurate certification by the applicant could
    jeopardize all of the applicant's funding requests for that year.
    Furthermore, in light of the thousands of applications that SLD must
    review and process each year, we find that it is administratively
    appropriate to require an applicant to be responsible for the
    accuracy and adequacy of the certifications it makes in support of
    its request for discounted services.

16. USAC correctly points out the potential problems inherent in
    performing a review for necessary resources at the individual FRN
    level. In order to perform such a review, SLD would be required to
    determine the extent to which particular FRNs submitted in the same
    funding year are or are not related to one another. In effect, SLD
    would be required to determine which set of discounted services an
    applicant would have requested had it been cognizant of the
    necessary resources problems in the funding requests it actually
    made. We find that SLD should not be placed in a position of making
    such choices on behalf of applicants. To do so would be contrary to
    the policies and objectives underlying the schools and libraries
    support mechanism, under which the Commission has determined that
    individual schools and libraries, not SLD, are best positioned to
    determine their support needs in light of their particular
    technological capabilities and educational needs.

17. Finally, contrary to UTA's suggestion, we are satisfied by USAC's
    explanation that an applicant cannot circumvent SLD's necessary
    resources review procedure simply by filing several applications
    with a portion of its funding requests listed on each one. As
    represented by USAC, SLD's practice is to perform a review of all of
    an applicant's funding requests that are submitted within a given
    funding year concurrently. As a consequence, segregating individual
    funding requests into separate FCC Form 471s would not cause
    particular funding requests to be approved where SLD had found that
    the applicant had made an inaccurate or inadequate necessary
    resources certification in connection with the applicant's
    submission of another FCC Form 471. Thus, with one exception, we
    find that SLD's current practice of reviewing necessary resources
    certifications constitutes a reasonable application of our rules and
    that SLD's necessary resources review serves as an effective and
    reasonable implementation of our mandate that SLD take steps to curb
    waste, fraud, and abuse.

18. Notwithstanding our determination to uphold SLD's general practice
    of denying funding for all requests where SLD determines that an
    applicant's certification is inaccurate or inadequate, we find that
    a funding request for basic voice telephone service reasonably may
    be considered in isolation from an applicant's other funding
    requests. Specifically, the components and resources needed to make
    effective use of basic telephone service (*e.g.*, telephones) are
    readily ascertainable and do not require a detailed or intimate
    knowledge of an applicant's overall technology plan to determine
    whether the request is based on the reasonable needs and resources
    of the applicant. In fact, unlike applicants requesting discounts on
    all other eligible services, applicants requesting discounts solely
    for voice telephone service are not required to submit a technology
    plan in connection with such a request.[^53] Thus, we find that
    separate consideration of an applicant's request for discounted
    voice telephone service is warranted where the service is requested
    on a stand-alone basis and is not bundled with other services within
    a single FRN.

19. Thus, we find that the considerations weighing in favor of SLD's
    method of review do not apply where individual FRNs seek discounts
    solely for basic voice telephone service. Accordingly, we find here
    that, unlike other types of funding requests, FRNs that seek
    discounts solely for basic voice telephone service should not be
    rejected by SLD solely because another funding request or set of
    funding requests submitted by the applicant within the same funding
    year fails under SLD's review for necessary resources. Therefore, we
    remand UTA's application to SLD for further determination on the
    merits of any FRNs seeking discounts solely for basic voice
    telephone service. If SLD finds that UTA submitted individual FRNs
    seeking discounts solely for basic voice telephone service, that
    such requests individually pass SLD's review for necessary
    resources, and that such requests are otherwise in compliance with
    our rules and orders governing the schools and libraries support
    mechanism, we direct SLD to fund those requests.[^54]

20. To effectuate the decision above, it may be necessary to waive
    section 54.507(b)(2) of the Commission\'s rules.[^55] This rule
    section provides that schools and libraries may receive discounts on
    nonrecurring services only through September 30, 1999. If in the
    future UTA requires relief from this deadline in order to implement
    nonrecurring services pursuant to this Order, UTA will be able to
    obtain such relief under our order of December 28, 1999.[^56] Under
    that order, certain applicants granted Year One funding requests
    late in the funding year, or after the funding year ended, pursuant
    to a favorable decision on a request for review may receive an
    additional 180 days from the issuance of their new funding
    commitment letter to implement nonrecurring services.

21. In its Letter of Appeal to the Commission, UTA also requests that it
    be given an opportunity to review "all the records of the SLD as
    they specifically pertain to the UTA's application . . . ."[^57] In
    light of UTA's currently limited funding request and the
    Commission's remand of UTA's application to SLD for further
    determination on the merits of UTA's requests for discounts on its
    basic voice telephone service, UTA's request for review of SLD's
    records is moot. We, therefore, dismiss UTA's request for an
    opportunity to review SLD records pertaining to UTA's funding
    application.

# ORDERING CLAUSE

22. 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
    August 12, 1999, by the United Talmudical Academy of Brooklyn, New
    York, IS GRANTED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART and United Talmudical
    Academy's application IS REMANDED to the SLD for further
    consideration in light of this decision.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

[^1]: 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]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(1), (b)(3). In submitting its FCC Form 470,
    an applicant is required to provide only general information about
    the services for which it seeks discounts, *e.g*., number of phones
    that require service, number of dial-up connections necessary, as
    well as an assessment of the applicant\'s existing technology that
    may be necessary for the effective use of eligible services.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c).

[^5]: *See* FCC Form 470, OMB No. 3060-0806, at Item 25 (December 1997).

[^6]: *See* FCC Form 471, OMB No. 3060-0806, at Item 22 (December 1997).

[^7]: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket No.
    96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9079, para. 577 (1997)
    (*Universal Service Order*), as corrected by *Federal‑State Joint
    Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket No. 96‑45, Errata, FCC 97‑157
    (rel. June 4, 1997), *affirmed in part in Texas Office of Public
    Utility Counsel v. FCC*, 183 F.3d 393 (5^th^ Cir. 1999), *motion for
    stay granted in part* (Sept. 28, 1999), *petitions for rehearing and
    rehearing en banc denied* (Sept. 28, 1999) (affirming *Universal
    Service Order* in part and reversing and remanding on unrelated
    grounds). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(1) (requiring applicants
    to provide information about equipment, services, training and other
    facilities in place to make use of the services requested) *and* 47
    C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(2) (requiring that each applicant's FCC Form 470
    certify that "all of the necessary funding in the current funding
    year has been budgeted and approved to pay for the 'non-discount'
    portion of requested connections and services as well as any
    necessary hardware or software, and to undertake the necessary staff
    training required to use the services effectively . . . "). These
    requirements are referred to collectively hereinafter as the
    "necessary resources certifications."

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.705(a)(1) (setting forth the functions of the
    Schools and Libraries Committee) *and* 47 C.F.R. § 54.701(g)(i)
    (directing the Administrator to establish the Schools and Libraries
    Division, and setting forth its functions).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.705(a)(1). *See also* *Changes to the Board of
    Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.,
    Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Third Report and
    Order and Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 97-21 and
    Eighth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45, 13 FCC Rcd
    25058, 25075-76, paras. 30-31 and 34 (1998) (*Eighth Reconsideration
    Order*) (describing the functions of the Schools and Libraries
    Committee).

[^10]: *See* Letter from Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal
    Service Administrative Company to United Talmudical Academy, dated
    January 13, 1999 (*Request for Additional Information*).

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *See* Letter from United Talmudical Academy to Schools and
    Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company,
    date unknown (on or about January 13, 1999).

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: *See* Funding Commitment Letter of Debra M. Kriete, Universal
    Service Administrative Company, Schools and Libraries Division, to
    Mozes Greenfeld, United Talmudical Academy, dated February 26, 1998
    \[sic\] (actual date February 26, 1999).

[^16]: *See* Letter of Appeal of Mozes Greenfeld, United Talmudical
    Academy, to Universal Service Administrative Company, Schools and
    Libraries Division, dated March 24, 1999.

[^17]: *See id.* at 1.

[^18]: *See id.* at 2. In its appeal to SLD, UTA did not seek review of
    SLD's denial of UTA's other funding requests, including requests for
    discounts on Internet access and some internal connections services.

[^19]: *See* Administrator's Decision on Appeal of Universal Service
    Administrative Company, Schools and Libraries Division, to Mozes
    Greenfeld, United Talmudical Academy, dated July 14, 1999 (*Decision
    on Appeal)*.

[^20]: *See* Letter of Mozes Greenfeld, United Talmudical Academy, to
    Ellen Wolfhagen, Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal
    Service Administrative Company, dated July 21, 1999.

[^21]: *See* Letter of Ellen Wolfhagen, Schools and Libraries Division
    of the Universal Service Administrative Company, to Mozes Greenfeld,
    United Talmudical Academy, dated August 9, 1999.

[^22]: *See id*. at 2.

[^23]: *See* Letter of Appeal of Mozes Greenfeld, United Talmudical
    Academy, to the Office of the Secretary, FCC, dated August 11, 1999
    (*Letter of Appeal)*.

[^24]: *See* *id.* at 1, 4, 5 and 6. In its appeal to the Commission,
    UTA did not seek review of SLD's denial of UTA's other funding
    requests, including requests for discounts on Internet access and
    internal connections services.

[^25]: *See* *id.* at 8.

[^26]: *See id.* at 6.

[^27]: *See id.* at 5-6.

[^28]: *See Administrator's Decision on Appeal*.

[^29]: *See Letter of Appeal* at 5-6.

[^30]: *See id.*

[^31]: *See* Letter from D. Scott Barash, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, dated December
    20, 1999 (*USAC letter*), at 2.

[^32]: Communications Act of 1934 (as amended), ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064
    (June 19, 1934). Amended by Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L.
    104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (Feb. 8, 1996).

[^33]: USAC letter at 2.

[^34]: USAC letter at 2 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B)).

[^35]: USAC letter at 2 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(2)).

[^36]: USAC letter at 2 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 54.702(h)).

[^37]: *Id.*

[^38]: USAC letter at 2-3.

[^39]: USAC letter at 3.

[^40]: USAC letter at 3. USAC states that "\[w\]ithout detailed,
    intimate knowledge of an applicant's current education technology,
    its budgeted plans for the future, and how each individual funding
    request fit into the applicant's technology plan, SLD would very
    likely approve requests for support that would not make for an
    integrated system and that would not produce the educational
    benefits for which the Schools and Libraries Program was
    established." *Id.*

[^41]: USAC letter at 2-4*.*

[^42]: USAC letter at 3.

[^43]: USAC letter at 4.

[^44]: USAC letter at 2.

[^45]: USAC letter at 2.

[^46]: USAC letter at 2.

[^47]: *See* Letter from Mozes Greenfeld, Telecommunications Project
    Director, United Talmudical Academy, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC,
    dated December 27, 1999 (*UTA letter*).

[^48]: *See* UTA letter at 2-3.

[^49]: *See* UTA letter at 3.

[^50]: *See* UTA letter at 3.

[^51]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.702(h) (requiring that the Administrator's
    annual report to the Commission detail the Administrator's
    "administrative action intended to prevent waste, fraud, and
    abuse").

[^52]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(2)(v).

[^53]: *See* FCC Form 470, "Description of Services Requested and
    Certification Form," OMB 3060-0806, Block 6, Item 22 (December
    1997); *and* FCC Form 471, "Services Ordered and Certification
    Form," OMB 3060-0806, Block 6, Item 23 (December 1997).

[^54]: Because we have granted UTA's appeal by remanding its request for
    basic telephone service to SLD for further determination, we do not
    reach any additional arguments raised by UTA in its December 27,
    1999 letter.

[^55]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(b)(2).

[^56]: *See* *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, Order, CC
    Docket No. 96-45, DA 99-3013 (Com. Car. Bur. December 28, 1999).

[^57]: *See Letter of Appeal* at 8.