**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, DC 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Petition for Reconsideration of the )

Request for Review of the Decision of the )

Universal Service Administrator by )

)

Houghton Lake Public Library ) File No. SLD-52629

Houghton Lake, Michigan )

)

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 ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: February 5, 2002 Released: February 13, 2002**

By the Common Carrier Bureau:

1.  The Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) has under consideration a
    Petition for Reconsideration submitted by Houghton Lake Public
    Library (Houghton Lake), Houghton Lake, Michigan.[^1] Houghton Lake
    seeks reconsideration of our denial of its Request for Review of the
    decision issued by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the
    Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator), denying
    its application for discounts for telecommunication services under
    the schools and libraries universal support mechanism.[^2] For the
    reasons set forth below, we dismiss the Petition for
    Reconsideration.

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] The Commission's rules require that the applicant
    make a bona fide request for services by filing with the
    Administrator an FCC Form 470, which is posted to the
    Administrator's website for all potential competing service
    providers to review and bid upon.[^4] After the FCC Form 470 is
    posted, the applicant must wait at least 28 days before entering an
    agreement for services and submitting an FCC Form 471, which
    requests support for eligible services.[^5] SLD reviews the FCC
    Forms 471 that it receives and issues funding commitment decisions
    in accordance with the Commission's rules.[^6]

3.  The Commission's rules further provide that eligible schools and
    libraries with pre-existing contracts are exempt from the
    competitive bidding requirement under certain circumstances. In
    relevant part, section 54.511(c)(1) exempts contracts entered into
    on or prior to July 10, 1997 from competitive bidding requirements
    for the duration of the contract.[^7] In such a case, the service
    request need not be subjected to competitive bidding. However, an
    existing contract must have been reported on an FCC Form 470 either
    in the year of the funding request or in a prior funding year.[^8]
    The applicant's FCC Form 471 must demonstrate compliance with the
    competitive bidding rules by specifying, for each funding request,
    the FCC Form 470 in which the contract was either posted for
    competitive bidding or reported as a pre-existing contract.[^9]

4.  In our previous decision, we denied Houghton Lake's Request for
    Review and upheld SLD's determination that Houghton Lake had failed
    to demonstrate to SLD during its application review that Houghton
    Lake had complied with our competitive bidding requirements.[^10] In
    its pending Petition for Reconsideration, Houghton Lake disputes our
    conclusion that it failed to demonstrate its compliance with our
    competitive bidding requirements.[^11]

5.  Houghton Lake asserts that its January 29, 1998 letter to Merit
    Network established a contract and it therefore was exempt from our
    competitive bidding requirements.[^12] Houghton Lake also explains
    that its employee's statement that Houghton Lake did not have a
    contract with Merit was intended to convey only that Houghton Lake
    does not use an official contract form and that its employee faxed
    the January 29, 1998 letter as evidence of the pre-existing
    contract.[^13] Houghton Lake submits further information to clarify
    a statement in its January 29, 1998 letter that "details for
    products and services are not yet finalized but total costs are not
    to exceed \$45,000."[^14] The Petitioner claims that this statement
    does not refer to Internet connection but to other services and
    products that were under consideration.[^15] Houghton Lake further
    explains that the \$45,000 figure was not the contract price for the
    Internet connection, but the complete budget amount that the library
    board had designated for purchasing the necessary computer equipment
    and training.[^16]

6.  Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules provides that a petition for
    reconsideration of an order denying an application for review will
    be entertained only if: 1) the petition relies on facts which have
    occurred or circumstances which have changed since the last
    opportunity to present such matters; or 2) the petition relies on
    facts unknown to the petitioner until after the last opportunities
    to present such matters could not, through ordinary diligence, have
    been learned prior to that opportunity.[^17] Although Houghton Lake
    presents additional clarifications, it does not and cannot argue
    that this was evidence that was unknown to it when it filed its
    Request for Review. As detailed above, the facts underlying the
    additional clarifications that Houghton Lake relies on in its
    petition had to have been known at the time of its original request
    for review. We find that Houghton Lake's Petition for
    Reconsideration fails to demonstrate that there is either a changed
    circumstance or new facts. Moreover, a party may not base a petition
    for reconsideration on new facts that were available to it at the
    time of its original request for review.[^18] As a result, Houghton
    Lake's petition for reconsideration is subject to dismissal as
    repetitious pursuant to Section 1.106(b)(3).[^19]

7.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under
    sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Petition for
    Reconsideration filed by Houghton Lake Public Library, Houghton
    Lake, Michigan on August 18, 1999 is DISMISSED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Carol E. Mattey

    Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: Letter from Donna J. Alward, Houghton Lake Public Library, to
    Federal Communications Commission, filed August 18, 1999 (Petition
    for Reconsideration).

[^2]: *Request for Review by Houghton Lake Public Library, Federal-State
    Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board of Directors
    of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.*, File No.
    SLD-52629, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and 97-21, Order, DA 99-1506 (Com.
    Car. Bur. rel. July 29, 1999) (*Request for Review by Houghton
    Lake*). Parties may seek reconsideration from a final action of the
    Commission or its designated authority pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §
    1.106.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.

[^4]: Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services
    Requested and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (December 1997) (FCC
    Form 470); 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b); *Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC
    Rcd 8776, 9078, para. 575 (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*, *Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC*, 183 F.3d
    393 (5th Cir. 1999) (affirming *Universal Service First Report and
    Order* in part and reversing and remanding on unrelated grounds),
    *cert. denied, Celpage, Inc. v. FCC*, 120 S. Ct. 2212 (May 30,
    2000), *cert. denied,* *AT&T Corp. v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co*., 120
    S. Ct. 2237 (June 5, 2000*), cert. dismissed,* *GTE Service Corp. v.
    FCC*, 121 S. Ct. 423 (Nov. 2, 2000); SLD Website,
    \<[http://www.sl.universalservice.org](http://www.sl.universalservice.org/)\>.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b), (c); Schools and Libraries Universal
    Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (FCC
    Form 471).

[^6]: *Request for Review by Metropolitan Public Library of Pike
    Township*, *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes
    to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, Inc.*, File No. SLD-120821, CC Dockets No. 96-45 and
    97-21, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 13891, para. 2 (Com. Car. Bur. 2000).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.511(c)(1). *See* *Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance
    Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and
    Pricing, End User Common Line Charge*, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 96-262,
    94-1, 91-213, and 95-72, Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC
    Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 96-262,
    96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 95-72, 13 FCC Rcd 5318, 5441, para. 217 (1997)
    (*Fourth Order on Reconsideration*).

[^8]: *See* SLD Website, Reference, Frequently Asked Questions,
    \<<http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/faq.asp#1>\>.

[^9]: Instructions for Completing the Schools and Libraries Universal
    Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form (FCC Form 471), OMB
    3060-0806 (December 1997) (Form 471 Instructions).

[^10]: *Request for Review by Houghton Lake*, at 9

[^11]: Petition for Reconsideration, at 1.

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(2).

[^18]: *Keith Maydak v. AT&T Communications*, File No. E-95-39, 14 FCC
    Rcd 6680, para. 7 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999) ("Section 1.106(b)(2) of the
    Commission's rules permit the consideration of later-supplied
    evidence \[on a petition for reconsideration\] only if the petition
    can show that this evidence is based on facts that were unavailable
    or unknown to petitioner until after his last opportunity to present
    such material.").

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(3).