**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, DC 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Request for Review of the )

Decision of the )

Universal Service Administrator by )

)

Schuyler R-1 School District ) NEC.471.01-07-00.4000056

Queen City, Missouri )

)

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 11, 2002 Released: January 14, 2002**

By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau:

1.  The Accounting Policy Division has under consideration a Request for
    Review from Schuyler R-1 School District (Schuyler), Queen City,
    Missouri.[^1] Schuyler challenges the denial of its application for
    schools and libraries universal service support in Funding Year 3 by
    the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service
    Administrative Company (Administrator).[^2] For the reasons
    discussed below, we deny Schuyler\'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 the
    Administrator 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 one or more
    agreements for eligible services, the applicant must submit a
    completed FCC Form 471 application to the Administrator.[^5] A
    commitment of support is contingent upon the timely filing of the
    applicant's FCC Form 471.[^6] In the FCC Form 471 instructions, SLD
    has clearly set forth its standards for processing a FCC Form 471
    application.[^7] Specifically, the FCC Form 471 instructions state
    that if a school or library does not provide the information
    requested on its FCC Form 471, "the processing of your application
    may be delayed or your application may be returned to you without
    action."[^8]

3.  SLD received Schuyler's manually submitted FCC Form 471 on January
    7, 2000, within the Funding Year 3 filing window.[^9] SLD, however,
    returned Schuyler's application on February 16, 2000, without
    processing it because Schuyler\'s FCC Form 471 application failed to
    meet SLD's minimum processing standards.[^10] Specifically, Schuyler
    failed the minimum processing standards because its FCC Form 471 was
    missing page 5, which contains Block 6, the section of FCC Form 471
    where applicants must sign the form and make certifications required
    under program rules.[^11] By letter dated February 18, 2000,
    Schuyler submitted page 5 of its FCC Form 471.[^12] Because SLD had
    not received a completed FCC Form 471 before the filing window
    closed, SLD notified Schuyler that its application would not be
    considered within the filing window.[^13]

4.  Schuyler then appealed SLD's decision to the Administrator by letter
    filed February 22, 2000.[^14] Schuyler claimed that it submitted
    page 5 with its original FCC Form 471 application, but SLD misplaced
    the last page.[^15] Schuyler resubmitted a signature certification,
    but on a Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471 Form.[^16] Schuyler requests
    that its application be considered as filed within the window
    because it filed its FCC Form 471 before the window closed.[^17] The
    Administrator treated Schuyler's February 22, 2000 letter as a
    Request for Waiver, declined to rule on the request, and directed
    Schuyler to seek relief from the Commission.[^18]

5.  On appeal to the Commission, Schuyler contends that its application
    was filed within the filing window under program rules.

6.  We find no basis to grant relief to Schuyler. The Commission has
    upheld SLD's minimum processing standard of requiring the applicants
    to use the correct form.[^19] By failing to submit a signature
    certification with its original application, Schuyler omitted the
    legally binding act that signifies compliance with program rules.
    Simply put, Schuyler failed to meet the minimum processing standards
    for filing an application.[^20]

7.  Schuyler presents no credible evidence to support its claim that SLD
    has misplaced its originally submitted signature certification.
    Based on the record before us, we find that Schuyler has failed to
    demonstrate that it submitted the signature certification page with
    the rest of its Funding Year 3 FCC Form 471 application.[^21]

8.  The applicants' self-certification is designed to ensure that
    eligible entities receive universal support and that those entities
    have adopted plans for securing cost effective access to, and use
    of, the discounted services received under program rules, thereby
    implementing statutory requirements. Further, the signature
    certification to the FCC Form 471 certifies that the application is
    complete and that all of the information is truthful. Certification
    is fundamental to the efficient administration of the schools and
    libraries program. SLD relies on the signature certification to
    establish the authority of the signer to represent the applicant.
    Signature certifications ultimately satisfy the policy objective of
    binding the applicants and service providers to the program
    requirements. The signature certification requirement 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.

9.  The purpose of the filing window is to put all applicants who file
    within the window on equal footing. Allowing applicants to file
    incomplete applications, and have those applications considered
    timely filed, would be unfair to the applicants who diligently filed
    their complete applications in a timely fashion. Moreover, complete
    applications are essential to SLD's ability to efficiently run the
    program. In light of the thousands of applications that SLD must
    review and process each year, we find that it is administratively
    necessary to require an applicant to be responsible for providing
    complete and accurate information in its FCC Form 471 upon which its
    ultimate funding is dependent. The applicant must act to ensure that
    its request for discounts satisfies the Commission's policies as
    well as program rules.[^22]

10. If applicants were permitted to correct their applications after the
    window closed, it would eliminate any incentive to avoid making
    unauthorized service requests or to comply with the SLD's document
    demands in a timely fashion.[^23] This would significantly increase
    the administrative burden SLD would face while carrying out its
    obligation to guard against the occurrence of errors and fraud.[^24]
    Furthermore, if applicants were permitted to amend their requests
    after the filing window closed, it could jeopardize SLD's ability to
    accurately apply the rules of priority in years where requests for
    funding exceed the annual funding cap.[^25] Because Schuyler is
    unable to demonstrate that it timely filed a Year 3 signature
    certification, its request to have its FCC Form 471 considered
    timely filed within the filing window must fail.

11. To the extent that Schuyler seeks a waiver of the filing window for
    its resubmitted Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471 certification page, we
    find no basis to grant the waiver.[^26] A 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.[^27] A rule, therefore, may be waived
    where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with
    the public interest.[^28] In the instant case, we conclude that
    Schuyler fails to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a
    deviation from our rules, and therefore deny its Waiver Request.

12. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under
    sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a) of the Commission\'s rules,
    47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Request for
    Review filed July 7, 2000 by Schuyler R-1 School District, Queen
    City, Missouri and the request to waive the 30-day time limit in
    which to file an appeal are DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Mark G. Seifert

Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division

Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: Letter from Linda Berry, Schuyler R-1 School District, to Federal
    Communications Commission, filed July 7, 2000 (Request for Review);
    *see also* Letter from Linda Berry, Schuyler R-1 School District, to
    Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative
    Company, filed February 22, 2000 (SLD Appeal Letter).

[^2]: *Id.*

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(1), (b)(3).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c).

[^6]: *Id*. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(c), the Administrator is
    directed to establish a filing period (filing window) that treats
    all applicants as though their applications were received on the
    same day. Applications that are received outside of this filing
    window are subject to separate funding priorities under the
    Commission's rule, 47 C.F.R. § 54.507(g). It is to the applicants'
    advantage, therefore, to ensure that the Administrator receives
    their applications prior to the close of the filing window. In
    Funding Year 3, the window closed on January 19, 2000.

[^7]: Instructions for Completing the Schools and Libraries Universal
    Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form (FCC Form 471), OMB
    3060-0806 (September 1999) (Form 471 Instructions); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 54.504(c).

[^8]: Form 471 Instructions, at 2.

[^9]: FCC Form 471, Schuyler Unified School District, filed June 9, 2000

[^10]: Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Schuyler R-1 School District, dated
    February 16, 2000.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: Letter from Linda Berry, Schuyler R-1 School District, to Schools
    and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company,
    dated February 18, 2000.

[^13]: Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Schuyler R-1 School District, dated
    February 16, 2000.

[^14]: SLD Appeal Letter, at 1; *see also* Request for Review, at 1.

[^15]: *Id*.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: Request for Review, at 1.

[^18]: Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service
    Administrative Company, to Schuyler R-1 School District, dated June
    20, 2000.

[^19]: *See Request for Review by Fair Lawn Board of Education, Changes
    to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, Inc.*, File No. NEC.471.12-10-99.02300008 and
    NEC.471.11-19-99.01100003, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, DA
    01-1504 (Com. Car. Bur. rel. June 27, 2001) (upholding SLD's minimum
    processing standard that required applicants to use the correct FCC
    Forms for the funding years in which they were applying).

[^20]: Schuyler's failure to timely submit a signature is further
    compounded by the fact that Schuyler submitted a signature on a
    Funding Year 2 FCC Form 471, when it was required to do so on a
    Funding Year 3 FCC Form 471. Universal Service Administrative
    Company, Schools and Libraries Program, Reference Area: Form 471
    Minimum Processing Standards and Filing Requirements,
    \<[http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/471mps.asp]{.underline}\>
    (stating that a complete FCC Form 471 for Funding Year 3 must be a
    "correct OMB-approved FCC Form 471, with a date of September 1999 in
    the lower right-hand corner").

[^21]: *See Request for Review* *by Old Town School Department,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.*,
    File No. SLD-142237, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, DA
    01-1090 (Com. Car. Bur. rel. April 30, 2001), para. 5 (stating that
    in the absence of evidence presented by the applicant to the
    contrary, the Commission accepts the FCC Form 471 in the record as
    the application which was received by SLD).

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504 *et seq*.; *Request for Review by Free Library
    of Philadelphia, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,
    Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, Inc.*, File No. SLD-112605, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and
    97-21, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23820 (Com. Car. Bur. 2000).

[^23]: *See also Request for Review by Cheney Public Schools,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.*,
    File No. SLD-142969, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, DA
    01-351 (Com. Car. Bur. rel. Feb. 13, 2001), para. 6.

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: FCC Form 471, Schuyler Unified School District, filed June 9,
    2000.

[^27]: *Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166
    (D.C. Cir. 1990) (*Northeast Cellular*); *see also* *WAIT Radio*,
    897 F.2d at 1159 (stating that the Commission may take into account
    considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation
    of overall policy on an individual basis).

[^28]: *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at 1166.