**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, DC 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Requests for Review or Waiver of Decisions of )

the Universal Service Administrator by )

)

Brownsville Independent School District ) File Nos. SLD-482620, *et al.*

Brownsville, TX, *et al*. )

)

Schools and Libraries Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 02-6

Support Mechanism )

**order**

**Adopted: March 22, 2007 Released: March 28, 2007**

By the Commission:**  **Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement.

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  In this Order, we grant appeals by 32 schools and libraries
    (collectively, Petitioners) of decisions by the Universal Service
    Administrative Company (USAC) that reduced or denied them funding
    from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism
    (also known as the E-rate program).[^1] Specifically, we waive, in
    part, our technology plan rules and remand the underlying
    applications to USAC for further consideration consistent with this
    Order. To ensure that the remanded applications are resolved
    expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its review of each
    application listed in the Appendix, 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. In addition, beginning with
    applications for Funding Year 2007, we direct USAC to enhance its
    outreach efforts as described herein to better inform applicants of
    the technology plan requirements and to provide applicants with a
    15-day opportunity to provide correct technology plan
    documentation.[^2]

2.  As we recently noted, many E-rate program beneficiaries,
    particularly small entities, contend that the application process is
    complicated,[^3] resulting in their applications for E-rate support
    being denied because of simple mistakes. We find that the actions we
    take here will promote the statutory requirements of section 254(h)
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), by helping
    to ensure that eligible schools and libraries obtain access to
    discounted telecommunications and information services.[^4]

3.  In particular, to prevent some of the recurring mistakes related to
    the technology plan requirements while we consider additional steps
    to improve the E-rate program,[^5] we direct USAC to enhance its
    outreach efforts as described herein. Requiring USAC to take these
    additional steps will not reduce or eliminate any application review
    procedures or program requirements that applicants must comply with
    to receive funding. Indeed, we remain committed to detecting and
    deterring potential instances of waste, fraud, and abuse by ensuring
    that USAC continues to scrutinize applications and takes steps to
    educate applicants in a manner that fosters lawful program
    participation. We also emphasize that the actions taken in this
    Order should have minimal effect on the overall federal universal
    service fund (USF or Fund), because the monies needed to fund these
    appeals have already been collected and held in reserve.[^6]

## II. BACKGROUND

4.  The E-rate program permits eligible schools, libraries, and
    consortia that include eligible schools and libraries to apply for
    funding in the form of discounts on eligible telecommunications
    services, Internet access, and internal connections.[^7] The
    Commission requires participating schools and libraries to base
    their requests for discounts on an approved technology plan,[^8]
    unless they are seeking discounts on "basic local, cellular, PCS,
    and/or long distance telephone service and/or voicemail only."[^9]
    Specifically, to ensure that applicants make appropriate decisions
    regarding the services for which they seek discounts, applicants
    must develop a technology plan prior to requesting bids on services
    through the filing of an FCC Form 470.[^10] In addition, to ensure
    that the plans are based on the reasonable needs and resources of
    the applicants and are consistent with the goals of the program, the
    technology plans must be independently approved by a state agency or
    other specified entity.[^11] Applicants whose technology plans have
    not been approved when they file FCC Form 470 must certify that they
    understand their technology plans must be approved prior to the
    commencement of service.[^12] They also must confirm, in FCC Form
    486, that their plan was approved before they began receiving
    services.[^13]

5.  Petitioners request review of USAC's decisions to reduce or deny
    them funding because their applications were not supported by an
    approved technology plan, as required by the Commission's
    rules.[^14]

## III. DISCUSSION

6.  In this item, we grant Petitioners' requests for review and we
    waive, in part, the Commission's technology plan rules.[^15] We
    therefore remand the underlying applications to USAC for further
    consideration consistent with this Order. In remanding Petitioners'
    underlying applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the
    sufficiency of any technology plan documentation and we make no
    finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the requested services.

7.  Petitioners' requests for funding from the E-rate program were
    denied because USAC determined that the funding requests were not
    supported by an approved technology plan. In some cases, Petitioners
    did not develop a technology plan because they sought discounts only
    for telecommunications services,[^16] or because they believed that
    a technology plan was not required for basic voice service provided
    over an ISDN/PRI line, a PBX system, or other similar
    technology.[^17] In other instances, Petitioners failed to show, in
    response to initial inquiries by USAC staff, that they had an
    approved technology plan in place for the relevant funding year, or
    that the plan was in the process of being approved.[^18] For
    example, some Petitioners had an approved technology plan in place
    for the relevant funding year, but provided an approval letter
    instead of the underlying plan,[^19] provided incorrect information
    about the date on which the technology plan was created,[^20] had
    the wrong entity approve the technology plan,[^21] or were unaware
    that the technology plan already existed.[^22] Other Petitioners
    based their applications on approved technology plans from prior
    years while they updated those plans and obtained approval
    consistent with state timeframes and procedures.[^23] Subsequently,
    these Petitioners confirmed that they had an approved technology
    plan in place for the relevant funding year when they responded to
    subsequent inquiries by USAC staff, when they appealed the funding
    decisions with USAC, or when they appealed the funding decisions
    with the Commission.[^24]

8.  Based on the facts and the circumstances of these funding
    applications, we conclude that there is good cause to waive the
    applicable technology plan rules and to grant Petitioners' requests
    for review. As noted above, several Petitioners committed clerical
    or ministerial errors, such as providing the wrong technology plan
    documentation.[^25] As we noted in the *Bishop Perry Order*, we do
    not believe that such minor mistakes warrant the rejection of these
    Petitioners' E-rate applications, especially given the requirements
    of the program and the thousands of applications filed each
    year.[^26] Additional Petitioners missed deadlines for developing or
    obtaining approval of their technology plans.[^27] USAC denied their
    applications not because the applicants refused to develop or obtain
    approval of their technology plans, but because Petitioners failed
    to show that they had met the deadlines when USAC requested
    technology plan documentation. Indeed, many Petitioners thought they
    had complied with the deadlines and provided copies of their
    technology plans or approval letters when they responded to
    subsequent inquiries by USAC staff, when they appealed the funding
    decisions with USAC, or when they appealed the funding decisions
    with the Commission. We find that, given that these violations are
    procedural, not substantive, rejection of these Petitioners' E-rate
    applications is not warranted.[^28]

9.  Still other Petitioners did not understand which telecommunications
    services are considered non-basic and therefore require a technology
    plan.[^29] We find that these Petitioners have demonstrated that
    rigid compliance with the application procedures does not further
    the purposes of section 254(h) or serve the public interest by
    denying their funding requests under those circumstances.[^30] As
    the Commission previously noted, many E-rate applications are
    prepared by school administrators, technology coordinators, teachers
    and librarians---workers whose primary role in the school or library
    may be unrelated to applying for federal universal service funds,
    especially in small school districts or libraries.[^31]

10. We also find that denying Petitioners' requests would create undue
    hardship and prevent these otherwise eligible schools and libraries
    from potentially receiving funding that they truly need to bring
    advanced telecommunications and information services their students
    and patrons.[^32] By contrast, waiving the applicable technology
    plan rules for these Petitioners and granting these requests will
    serve the public interest by preserving and advancing universal
    service.[^33] Although the technology plan requirements are
    necessary to guard against the waste of program funds, there is no
    evidence in the record that Petitioners engaged in activity to
    defraud or abuse the E-rate program. We further note that granting
    these requests should have minimal effect on the Fund as a
    whole.[^34] Therefore, we remand the appeals to USAC for further
    consideration consistent with this Order.[^35]

11. To ensure these issues are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to
    complete its review of the applications listed in the Appendix 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. If, on
    remand, USAC determines that it needs additional information to
    process the applications, such as a technology plan or approval
    letter, USAC shall permit Petitioners to provide the information
    within 15 calendar days of receiving notice in writing from USAC
    that additional information is required.[^36]

12. *Additional Processing Directives for USAC*. Beginning with
    applications for Funding Year 2007, if an applicant responds to a
    request by USAC to provide technology plan documentation and the
    documentation provided by the applicant is deficient (*e.g*., is
    outdated or will expire before the end of the relevant funding
    year), USAC shall: (1) inform the applicant promptly in writing of
    any and all deficiencies, along with a clear and specific
    explanation of how the applicant can remedy those deficiencies;
    and (2) permit the applicant to submit correct documentation, if
    any, within 15 calendar days from the date of receipt of notice in
    writing by USAC.[^37] USAC shall apply this directive to all pending
    applications and appeals.[^38] The 15-day period is limited enough
    to ensure that funding decisions are not unreasonably delayed for
    E-rate applicants and should provide sufficient time to correct
    truly unintentional errors.[^39] The opportunity for applicants to
    submit technology plan information that cures minor errors will also
    improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Fund. Because
    applicants who are eligible for funding will now receive funding
    where previously it was denied for minor errors, we will ensure that
    funding is distributed first to the applicants who are determined by
    our rules to be most in need of funding. As a result, universal
    service support will be received by schools and libraries in which
    it will have the greatest impact for the most students and patrons.
    Furthermore, the opportunity to provide correct technology plan
    documentation will improve the efficiency of the E-rate program. If
    USAC helps applicants provide correct technology plan documentation
    initially, USAC should be able to reduce the money it spends on
    administering the fund because fewer appeals will be filed
    protesting the denial of funding for these types of issues.
    Therefore, we believe this additional opportunity to cure
    inadvertent errors in the technology plan documentation submitted
    will improve the administration of the Fund and reduce the
    occurrence of circumstances justifying waivers such as those granted
    above.

13. To complement this effort, USAC shall develop additional outreach
    efforts to help applicants gain a better understanding of the
    technology plan requirements and avoid some of the mistakes
    presented here. Specifically, USAC shall update the information on
    its website concerning technology plans to clarify that the
    technology plan that the applicant must develop by the time it files
    its FCC Form 470 is the technology plan for the *upcoming* funding
    year(s). In some cases, when Petitioners filed FCC Form 470, they
    relied on technology plans from prior funding years that included
    the same services, but would expire during the application process
    or funding year.[^40] These Petitioners then obtained approval for
    new plans by the time they received discounted services.[^41]
    Therefore, they incorrectly assumed that they met the requirements
    in the Commission's rules that they be "covered by ... technology
    plans for using the services requested in the \[Form 470\]"[^42] and
    that "their plan \[be\] approved before they began receiving
    services."[^43] That is, they thought they could use two different
    plans to satisfy the technology plan requirements whereas the rules
    require applicants to develop a technology plan in advance of filing
    their FCC Form 470 and to obtain approval of *that same plan* prior
    to the commencement of service. We believe such an outreach program
    will increase awareness of the technology plan requirements and will
    assist applicants in complying with those requirements. We also
    believe that these changes will improve the overall efficacy of the
    E-rate program.

14. In addition, we note that, in the *Comprehensive Review NPRM*, we
    started a proceeding to address the concerns raised herein by, among
    other things, improving the application and disbursement process for
    the E-rate program.[^44] Although we expect that the additional
    direction we have provided in this Order will help ensure that
    eligible schools and libraries can more effectively navigate the
    technology plan requirements, this action does not obviate the need
    to take steps to reform and improve the program based on the record
    in the *Comprehensive Review* proceeding.

15. We emphasize the limited nature of this decision. Although we base
    our decision to grant these requests in part on the fact that many
    of the rules at issue here are procedural, such a decision is in the
    context of the purposes of section 254 and cannot necessarily be
    applied generally to other Commission rules that are procedural in
    nature. Specifically, section 254 directs the Commission to "enhance
    . . . access to advanced telecommunications and information services
    for all public and non-profit elementary and secondary school
    classrooms, health care providers and libraries."[^45] Moreover,
    this Order does not alter the obligation of participants in the
    E-rate program to comply with the Commission's rules on technology
    plans or our other rules, which are vital to the efficient operation
    of the E-rate program.[^46] We continue to require E-rate applicants
    to submit complete and accurate information to USAC in a timely
    fashion as part of the application review process. The direction we
    provide USAC will not lessen or preclude any application review
    procedures of USAC. All existing E-rate program rules and
    requirements will continue to apply, including the existing forms
    and documentation, USAC's Program Integrity Assurance review
    procedures, and other processes designed to ensure applicants meet
    the applicable program requirements.

16. Finally, we are committed to guarding against waste, fraud, and
    abuse, and ensuring that funds disbursed through the E-rate program
    are used for appropriate purposes. Although we grant the appeals
    addressed here, this action in no way affects the authority of the
    Commission or USAC to conduct audits and investigations to determine
    compliance with E-rate program rules and requirements. Because
    audits and investigations may provide information showing that a
    beneficiary or service provider failed to comply with the statute or
    Commission rules, such proceedings can reveal instances in which
    universal service funds were improperly disbursed or in a manner
    inconsistent with the statute or the Commission's rules. To the
    extent we find that funds were not used properly, we will require
    USAC to recover such funds through its normal processes. We
    emphasize that we retain the discretion to evaluate the uses of
    monies disbursed through the E-rate program and to determine on a
    case-by-case basis that waste, fraud, or abuse of program funds
    occurred and that recovery is warranted. We remain committed to
    ensuring the integrity of the program and will continue to
    aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under the
    Commission's procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement
    agencies.

## IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

17. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
    sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, that the Requests for Review or Waiver
    filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED to
    the extent provided herein.

18. 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 section 1.3 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, that sections
    54.504(b)(2)(iii)-(iv), (c)(1)(iv)-(v) and 54.508(c)-(d) of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b)(2)(iii)-(iv),
    (c)(1)(iv)-(v) and 54.508(c)-(d), ARE WAIVED to the extent provided
    herein.

19. 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, that the applications associated with
    the Requests for Review or Waiver filed by the Petitioners as listed
    in the Appendix ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in
    accordance with the terms of this Order.

20. 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, that USAC SHALL COMPLETE its review of
    each remanded application listed in the Appendix 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.

21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE
    [EFFECTIVE](http://web2.westlaw.com/result/result.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.02&ss=CNT&rp=%2FWelcome%2FCommunications%2Fdefault.wl&origin=Search&sv=Split&referencepositiontype=T&cfid=1&fn=_top&referenceposition=SR%3B49620&n=22&sskey=CLID_SSSA229983&mt=Communications&eq=Welcome%2FCommunications&method=TNC&query="EFFECTIVE"+%2F15+1.103&srch=TRUE&effdate=1%2F1%2F0001+12%3A00%3A00+AM&db=fcom-fcc&rlti=1&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT329983&service=Search&cnt=DOC&scxt=WL&docsample=False&rltdb=CLID_DB243883)
    upon release, in accordance with section
    [1](http://web2.westlaw.com/result/result.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.02&ss=CNT&rp=%2FWelcome%2FCommunications%2Fdefault.wl&origin=Search&sv=Split&referencepositiontype=T&cfid=1&fn=_top&referenceposition=SR%3B49627&n=22&sskey=CLID_SSSA229983&mt=Communications&eq=Welcome%2FCommunications&method=TNC&query="EFFECTIVE"+%2F15+1.103&srch=TRUE&effdate=1%2F1%2F0001+12%3A00%3A00+AM&db=fcom-fcc&rlti=1&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT329983&service=Search&cnt=DOC&scxt=WL&docsample=False&rltdb=CLID_DB243883).[103](http://web2.westlaw.com/result/result.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.02&ss=CNT&rp=%2FWelcome%2FCommunications%2Fdefault.wl&origin=Search&sv=Split&referencepositiontype=T&cfid=1&fn=_top&referenceposition=SR%3B49628&n=22&sskey=CLID_SSSA229983&mt=Communications&eq=Welcome%2FCommunications&method=TNC&query="EFFECTIVE"+%2F15+1.103&srch=TRUE&effdate=1%2F1%2F0001+12%3A00%3A00+AM&db=fcom-fcc&rlti=1&vr=2.0&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT329983&service=Search&cnt=DOC&scxt=WL&docsample=False&rltdb=CLID_DB243883)
    of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.103.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

    **APPENDIX**

    **Requests for Review or Waiver**

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Applicant**         | **Application         | **Funding Year**      |
|                       | Number**              |                       |
+=======================+=======================+=======================+
| Brownsville           | 482620                | 2005                  |
| Independent School    |                       |                       |
| District              | 482818                |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Charlottesville City  | 387023                | 2004                  |
| Schools               |                       |                       |
|                       | 387026                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 387283                |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Cleveland County      | 401354                | 2004                  |
| Memorial Library      |                       |                       |
|                       | 401368                |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Coldwater Public      | 487376                | 2005                  |
| Library               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Dedham Public Schools | 406505                | 2004                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Dickens Public        | 299479                | 2002                  |
| Library               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Elbert County School  | 452613                | 2005                  |
| District              |                       |                       |
|                       | 456680                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 476078                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 477346                |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Granite School        | 466373                | 2005                  |
| District              |                       |                       |
|                       | 468264                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 468281                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 468272                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 468255                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 452468                |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Hancock County Public | 397727                | 2004                  |
| Library               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Huntingdon Special    | 504027                | 2006                  |
| School District       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| InterTechnologies     | 255133                | 2001                  |
| Group                 |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Jacksboro Independent | 457383                | 2005                  |
| School District       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Kimball Public        | 492738                | 2006                  |
| Library               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Marathon County       | 477285                | 2005                  |
| Public Library        |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Marion County School  | 476915                | 2005                  |
| District Seven        |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Mark Twain Union      | 358862                | 2003                  |
| Elementary School     |                       |                       |
| District              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Maternity B.V.M.      | 465427                | 2005                  |
| School                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Milford E. Barnes Jr. | 347543                | 2003                  |
| School                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Norfolk Country       | 390006                | 2004                  |
| Agricultural High     |                       |                       |
| School                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Our Lady of Grace     | 465815                | 2005                  |
| School                |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The Pennsylvania      | 454956                | 2005                  |
| School for the Deaf   |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Pierson Library       | 406663                | 2004                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| St. Malachy School    | 479436                | 2005                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| St. Mary's Public     | 496905                | 2006                  |
| Library               |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| St. Mary Star of the  | 464208                | 2005                  |
| Sea School            |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| St. Paul -- Our Lady  | 481180                | 2005                  |
| of Vilna School       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| School Administrative | 341484                | 2003                  |
| District 29           |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| SEED Public Charter   | 372552                | 2003                  |
| School of Washington, |                       |                       |
| DC                    |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Socorro Consolidated  | 473432                | 2005                  |
| School District       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| South Boardman        | 469237                | 2005                  |
| Elementary School     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Urban Day School      | 478922                | 2005                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Wisconsin Rapids Area | 464910                | 2005                  |
| School District       |                       |                       |
|                       | 474301                |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**STATEMENT**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

*Re: Requests for Waiver of the Decision of the Universal Service
Administrator by*

*Adams County School District 14, Commerce City, CO, et al., and*

*Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket
No. 02-6*

*Re: Requests for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service
Administrator by*

*Alpaugh Unified School District, Alpaugh, CA, et al., and*

*Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket
No. 02-6*

> *Re: Requests for Review or Waiver of the Decision of the*
>
> *Universal Service Administrator by*

*Brownsville Independent School District, Brownsville, TX, et al., and*

*Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket
No. 02-6*

By adopting these three orders, we are granting 182 appeals of decisions
taken by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) that
reduced or denied funding by applicants of the schools and libraries
universal service mechanism. This program promotes the noble goal of
assisting schools and libraries in the United States to obtain
affordable telecommunications and Internet access. I support these
decisions for several reasons. First, each of these appeals involves
technicalities in the USAC procedures. Our actions here do not
substantively alter the eligibility of the Schools and Libraries
program. Furthermore, we find no indication of any intention to defraud
the system on the part of any of these applicants. Also, our decisions
and USAC's actions on appeal should have minimal effect on the level of
the Universal Service Fund, because USAC has already reserved sufficient
funds to take into account pending appeals. Finally, I am pleased that
we impose reasonable time limits on USAC to address these cases on
appeal so they can be resolved expeditiously.

[^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). In this Order, we use the term "appeals" to refer
    generically to the requests for review or waiver listed in the
    Appendix.

    USAC determined that Petitioners' funding requests were not
    supported by an approved technology plan. In three instances, USAC
    granted the Petitioner's funding request but then cancelled the
    Petitioner's FCC Form 486 because USAC later determined that the
    funding requests were not supported by an approved technology plan.
    Therefore, unlike the other Petitioners, these Petitioners request
    review of USAC's decision to cancel their FCC Forms 486. *See*
    *generally* Request for Review of SEED Public Charter School;
    Request for Review of St. Mary's Public Library; Request for Review
    of The Pennsylvania School for the Deaf. In addition, one
    Petitioner, Kimball Public Library, whose funding request has not
    yet been denied, requests a waiver of the requirement that it file a
    technology plan. *See* *generally* Request for Waiver of Kimball
    Public Library.

[^2]: USAC shall apply this directive to all pending applications and
    appeals as well.

[^3]: *Comprehensive Review of Universal Service Fund Management,
    Administration, and Oversight, Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support
    Mechanism, Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, Lifeline and Linkup,
    Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, Inc.,* WC Docket Nos. 05-195, 02-60, 03-109, CC Docket
    Nos. 96-45, 02-6, 97-21, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11308 (2005)
    (*Comprehensive Review NPRM*). *See also Request for Review of the
    Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Bishop Perry
    Middle School, et al.; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service*, File Nos. SLD-487170, *et al*., CC Docket No. 02-6, Order,
    21 FCC Rcd 5316 (2006) (*Bishop Perry Order*); *Request for Review
    of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Academy of
    Careers and Technologies, et al.; Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service*, File Nos. SLD-418938, *et al*., CC Docket No.
    02-6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5348 (2006).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(h). The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
    No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, amended the Communications Act of 1934.

[^5]: *Comprehensive Review NPRM*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11324-25, paras. 37-40
    (seeking comment on the application process and competitive bidding
    requirements for the schools and libraries program).

[^6]: *See infra* n.34.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.501-54.503.

[^8]: *Id*. §§ 54.504(b)(2)(iii)-(iv), 54.508; *Federal-State Joint
    Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order,
    12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9077, para. 572 (1997) (*Universal Service Order*)
    (subsequent history omitted).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(2)(iv); Universal Service Administrative
    Company, Eligible Services List,
    http://www.universalservice.org/\_res/documents/sl/pdf/els_archive/2006-eligible-services-list.pdf
    (dated Nov. 18, 2005) (*2006 Eligible Services List*) ("If
    submitting \[an\] application ONLY for single line voice services
    (Local, Cellular/PCS, and/or long distance telephone service),
    applicants are not required to develop a Technology Plan. Applicants
    applying for other products or services, including PBX, key system,
    Centrex system, or similar technology are required to develop a
    Technology Plan."); *see also Request for Review of the Decision of
    the Universal Service Administrator by United Talmudical Academy,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association*, CC
    Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18812, 18816, para. 11
    (Com. Carr. Bur. 2001).

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(2)(iii).

[^11]: *Id*. § 54.508(d); *Universal Service Order*, 12 FCC at 9078,
    para. 574. *See also* Universal Service Administrative Company,
    Technology Plans,
    http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step02/ (last modified
    Nov. 1, 2006).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b)(2)(iii)-(iv), 54.508(c); *see also Schools
    and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism*, CC Docket No.
    02-6, Fifth Report and Order and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15808, 15826-30,
    para. 56 (2004) (*Fifth Report and Order*). Applicants whose
    technology plans have not been approved when they file FCC Form 471
    must once again certify that they understand their technology plans
    must be approved prior to the commencement of service. 47 C.F.R. §§
    54.504(c)(1)(iv)-(v).

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.508(c).

[^14]: *See supra* n.1.

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b)(2)(iii)-(iv), (c)(1)(iv)-(v),
    54.508(c)-(d). The Commission may waive any provision of its rules
    on its own motion 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 into account
    considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation
    of overall policy on an individual basis. *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418
    F.2d 1153, 1157, (D.C. Cir. 1969), *affirmed by* *WAIT Radio v.
    FCC*, 459 F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972). In sum, waiver is appropriate
    if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule,
    and such deviation would better serve the public interest than
    strict adherence to the general rule. *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d
    at 1166.

[^16]: *See generally* Request for Review of Dickens Public Library.
    Dickens Public Library requested discounts only on
    telecommunications services but mistakenly attached documentation
    from a different funding request suggesting that it might be seeking
    discounts on Internet access services as well. *Id.*

[^17]: *See generally* Request for Review of Pierson Library; Request
    for Review of Marathon County Public Library; Request for Review of
    Coldwater Library; Request for Waiver of Kimball Public Library;
    Request for Review of The Pennsylvania School for the Deaf. We note
    that, until October 2003, the Eligible Services List did not specify
    that voice services provided via PBX or similar technology required
    a technology plan. *See* Universal Service Administrative Company,
    Eligible Services List -- Archived Versions,
    http://www.usac.org/sl/tools/search-tools/eligible-services-list-archived-versions.aspx
    (last modified Apr. 12, 2006). Moreover, the Eligible Services List
    has not, and does not, specifically state that applicants who
    receive voice service via ISDN/PRI or CentraNet are required to
    develop a technology plan, which may be confusing to some
    applicants. *Id.*; *see also* *2006 Eligible Services List*. Elbert
    County School District argues, in part, that it should not be
    required to submit a technology plan for Centrex services because
    Centrex was the most cost-effective way to obtain service. *See
    generally* Request for Review of Elbert County School District.
    Although applicants applying for Centrex service are required to
    develop a technology plan that reflects the service, we find that
    there is good cause to waive that requirement here. There is no
    evidence in the record that Elbert County School District intended
    to circumvent the technology plan requirements when it purchased
    Centrex service as a cost-saving measure.

[^18]: *See generally* Request for Review of School Administrative
    District 29; Request for Review of InterTechnologies Group; Request
    for Review of South Boardman Elementary School; Request for Review
    of Mark Twain Union Elementary School District; Request for Review
    of Norfolk Country Agricultural High School; Request for Review of
    Hancock County Public Library; Request for Review of Socorro
    Consolidated School District; Request for Review of Cleveland
    Country Memorial Library; Request for Review of Charlottesville City
    Schools; Request for Review of Wisconsin Rapids Area School
    District; Request for Review of SEED Public Charter School; Request
    for Review of Milford E. Barnes Jr. School; Request for Review of
    Dedham Public Schools; Request for Review of Jacksboro Independent
    School District; Request for Review of Maternity B.V.M. School;
    Request for Review of Elbert County School District; Request for
    Review of Our Lady of Grace School; Request for Review of
    Brownsville Independent School District; Request for Review of St.
    Malachy School; Request for Review of St. Mary Star of the Sea
    School; Request for Review of St. Paul -- Our Lady of Vilna School;
    Request for Review of Urban Day School; Request for Review of
    Granite School District; Request for Review of Marion County School
    District Seven; Request for Review of St. Mary's Public Library;
    Request for Review of The Pennsylvania School of the Deaf; Request
    for Review of Huntingdon Special School District.

[^19]: *See* Request for Review of Dedham Public Schools at 3.

[^20]: *See* Request for Review of St. Mary's Public Library at 2;
    Request for Review of Huntingdon Special School District at 2.

[^21]: *See* Request for Review of The Pennsylvania School of the Deaf
    at 1. Although The Pennsylvania School for the Deaf should have used
    an SLD-certified technology plan approver to approve its technology
    plan instead of relying on approval by the school's board, we find
    good cause to waive the requirement here. The Pennsylvania School of
    the Deaf misunderstood which entity should approve its technology
    plan given that it is neither a public school nor a private school
    but rather a school established by the Pennsylvania Constitution and
    charted by the Commonwealth. *See* Letter from Philip A. Shalanca
    and Franklin D. Franus, The Pennsylvania School of the Deaf, to
    Schools and Libraries Division, USAC (dated Nov. 6, 2006). There is
    no evidence in the record that The Pennsylvania School of the Deaf
    intended to circumvent the technology plan approval requirements.

[^22]: *See, e.g.,* Request for Review of Hancock County Public Library.

[^23]: *See, e.g.,* Request for Review of Cleveland County Memorial
    Library.

[^24]: *See supra* n.18. With respect to Socorro Consolidated School
    District, we note that the version of the approved technology plan
    that is included in the record covers only the first six months of
    the relevant funding year. *See generally* Request for Review of
    Socorro Consolidated School District. However, we find that the
    District's request was based on a previously approved technology
    plan. We further note that Jacksboro Independent School District now
    argues that it was not required to complete a technology plan for
    local and long distance voice services provided over a T-1 line.
    *See generally* Request for Review of Jacksboro Independent School
    District. Because local and long distance voice services provided
    over a T-1 line are not basic services, a technology plan is
    required. *See supra* n.9. Nonetheless, we grant the District's
    Request for Review and waive our technology plan rules because we
    find that its request was based on a previously approved technology
    plan and that it had an approved technology plan in place prior to
    the commencement of service. *See generally* Request for Review of
    Jacksboro Independent School District. Finally, we note that Marion
    County School District Seven now argues that a technology plan was
    not required. *See generally* Request for Review of Marion County
    School District Seven. Based on the record evidence, it appears that
    the District was, in fact, required to develop a technology plan.
    However, it also appears that Marion County School District Seven
    had a technology plan in place for part of the funding year and
    updated that plan and obtained approval consistent with state
    timeframes and procedures. *See* Letter of Appeal from Everette M.
    Dean, Jr. Ed.D., Superintendent, Marion County School District
    Seven, to Schools and Libraries Division, USAC (dated Apr. 20,
    2006).

[^25]: *See supra* para. 7.

[^26]: *Bishop Perry Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 5321, para. 11.

[^27]: *See supra* para. 7.

[^28]: *Bishop Perry Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 5323, para. 14.

[^29]: *See supra* para. 7.

[^30]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).

[^31]: *Bishop Perry Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 5323, para. 14.

[^32]: Dickens Public Library, for instance, states that it is a
    one-staff library open less than 20 hours a week in a town with a
    population of 202. Request for Review of Dickens Public Library
    at 1. Similarly, Socorro Consolidated Schools notes that it is
    located in the second poorest county in the second poorest state in
    the country. Request for Review of Socorro Consolidated Schools at
    2.

[^33]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(b).

[^34]: We estimate that these requests for review involve applications
    for approximately \$2,703,000 in funding for Funding Years
    2001-2006. We note that USAC has already reserved sufficient funds
    to address outstanding appeals. *See, e.g.,* Universal Service
    Administrative Company, Federal Universal Service Support Mechanisms
    Fund Size Projections for the Second Quarter 2007 (Jan. 31, 2007).
    Thus, we determine that the action we take today should have minimal
    effect on the Universal Service Fund as a whole.

[^35]: With respect to SEED Public Charter School, we note that USAC
    cancelled funding because SEED Public Charter School did not use an
    SLD-certified approver and did not provide a Letter of Approval
    signed by the SLD-certified approver. However, SEED Public Charter
    School has demonstrated that it provided the signed Letter of
    Approval to USAC in a timely manner. *See* Request for Review of
    SEED Public Charter School at Exhibit 7. In addition, SEED Public
    Charter School has demonstrated that the entity that approved its
    technology plan, DC Public Charter School Board, has been an
    SLD-certified technology plan approver for public charter schools
    including SEED Public Charter School since December 12, 2000. *Id.*
    at Exhibit 5.

[^36]: Petitioners will be presumed to have received notice five days
    after such notice is postmarked by USAC. USAC shall, however,
    continue to work beyond the 15 days with Petitioners attempting in
    good faith to provide such additional information.

[^37]: Applicants will be presumed to have received notice five days
    after such notice is postmarked by USAC. USAC shall, however,
    continue to work beyond the 15 days with applicants attempting in
    good faith to provide documentation.

[^38]: This includes all FY 2006 applications for which USAC has
    completed its review.

[^39]: We note that applicants will retain the ability to appeal
    decisions denying funding requests on other grounds. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    § 54.719(c).

[^40]: *See, e.g.,* Request for Review of Cleveland County Memorial
    Library.

[^41]: *Id.*

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(2)(iii).

[^43]: *Id.* § 54.508(d). In the *Fifth Report and Order*, the
    Commission revised its rules to permit applicants to obtain approval
    of their technology plans prior to receiving service instead of
    prior to filing their FCC Forms 470. However, the Commission made
    clear that "applicants still are expected to develop a technology
    plan prior to requesting bids on services in FCC Form 470; all that
    we are deferring is the timing of the approval of such plan by the
    state or other approved certifying body." *See Fifth Report and
    Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 15808, 15826-30, para. 56.

[^44]: *Comprehensive Review NPRM*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11324-25, paras.
    37-40.

[^45]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b)(2)(iii)-(iv), (c)(1)(iv)-(v),
    54.508; *Fifth Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 15808, 15826-30, para.
    56.