*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 21255.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2241 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  DC  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of  )  ) 
 Request  for  Review  of  the  )  Decision  of  the  ) 
 Universal  Service  Administrator  by  )  ) 
 Brandon  School  )  File  No.  SLD-  225855  Natick,  Massachusetts  ) 
 )  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:  September  12,  2002  Released:  September  13,  2002 
 By  the  Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau: 
 1.  The  Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division  has  under  consideration  a  Request  for  Review  filed  by  Brandon  School  (Brandon),  Natick,  Massachusetts.  1  Brandon  seeks  review 
 of  a  decision  issued  by  the  Schools  and  Libraries  Division  (SLD)  of  the  Universal  Service  Administrative  Company  (Administrator),  rejecting  Brandons  appeal  on  the  grounds  that  it  was 
 untimely  filed.  2  For  the  reasons  set  forth  below,  we  affirm  SLDs  rejection  and  deny  Brandon's  Request  for  Review. 

 2.  SLD  issued  a  Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter  on  March  15,  2002,  approving  Brandons  request  for  discounted  services  under  the  schools  and  libraries  universal  service 
 support  mechanism.  3  Specifically,  SLD  approved  Brandons  request  for  discounts  for  internal  connections,  Funding  Request  Number  (FRN)  553315,  but  reduced  the  amount  funded  to  remove 
 the  ineligible  products  or  services.  4  On  May  15,  2002,  Brandon  filed  an  appeal  of  SLDs 

 1  Letter  from  Paul  Watson,  Brandon  School,  to  Federal  Communications  Commission,  filed  June  14,  2002  (Request 
 for  Review). 
 2  Section  54.  719(  c)  of  the  Commission's  rules  provides  that  any  person  aggrieved  by  an  action  taken  by  a  division  of 
 the  Administrator  may  seek  review  from  the  Commission.  47  C.  F.  R    54.  719(  c). 
 3  Letter  from  Schools  and  Libraries  Division,  Universal  Service  Administrative  Company,  to  Paul  Watson,  Brandon 
 School,  dated  March  15,  2002  (Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter). 
 4  Id. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2241 
 2 
 decision.  5  On  May  16,  2002,  SLD  issued  an  Administrator's  Decision  on  Appeal  indicating  that  it  would  not  consider  Brandons  appeal  because  it  was  received  more  than  60  days  after  the 
 March  15,  2002  Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter  was  issued.  6  Brandon  subsequently  filed  the  instant  Request  for  Review  with  the  Commission. 

 3.  For  requests  seeking  review  of  decisions  issued  on  or  after  August  13,  2001  under  section  54.720(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  any  such  appeal  must  be  filed  with  the  Commission 
 or  SLD  within  60  days  of  the  issuance  of  the  decision  that  the  party  seeks  to  have  reviewed.  7  Documents  are  considered  to  be  filed  with  the  Commission  only  upon  receipt.  8  Because  the 
 instant  Request  for  Review  was  not  filed  within  the  requisite  60-  day  period,  we  affirm  the  Administrators  Decision  on  Appeal  and  deny  the  instant  Request  for  Review. 

 4.  To  the  extent  that  Brandon  is  requesting  that  we  waive  the  60-  day  deadline  established  in  section  54.720(  b)  of  the  Commission's  rules  for  its  underlying  appeal  of  SLD's 
 denial  of  discounted  services  for  FRN  553315,  we  deny  that  request  as  well.  9  The  Commission  may  waive  any  provision  of  its  rules,  but  a  request  for  waiver  must  be  supported  by  a  showing  of 
 good  cause.  10  Brandon  has  not  shown  good  cause  for  the  untimely  filing  of  its  initial  appeal.  Brandon  states  that  upon  calling  the  Client  Service  Bureau  and  inquiring  via  email,  it  was 
 advised  that  the  appeal  needed  only  to  be  postmarked  no  later  than  60  days  from  the  date  the  relevant  Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter  was  issued.  11 

 5.  We  conclude  that  Brandon  has  not  demonstrated  a  sufficient  basis  for  waiving  the  Commissions  rules.  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.  12  In  requesting  funds  from  the  schools  and  libraries  universal  service  support 
 mechanism,  the  applicant  has  certain  responsibilities.  The  applicant  bears  the  burden  of  submitting  its  appeal  to  SLD  within  the  established  deadline  if  the  applicant  wishes  its  appeal  to 
 be  considered  on  the  merits.  The  March  15,  2002  Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter  clearly  states  that  "your  appeal  must  be    RECEIVED  BY  THE  SCHOOLS  AND  LIBRARIES 
 DIVISION  (SLD)    WITHIN  60  DAYS  OF  THE    DATE  ON  [THE  FUNDING 

 5  Letter  from  Paul  Watson,  Brandon  Catholic  School,  to  Schools  and  Libraries  Division,  Universal  Service 
 Administrative  Company,  filed  May  15,  2002  (Request  for  Administrator  Review). 
 6  Letter  from  Schools  and  Libraries  Division,  Universal  Service  Administrative  Company,  to  Paul  Watson,  Brandon 
 School,  dated  May  16,  2002  (Administrator's  Decision  on  Appeal). 
 7  47  C.  F.  R.    54.720(  b).  See  Implementation  of  Interim  Filing  Procedures  for  Filings  of  Requests  for  Review, 
 Federal-  State  Joint  Board  on  Universal  Service,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  45,  Order,  FCC  01-  376  (rel.  Dec.  26,  2001),  as  corrected  by  Implementation  of  Interim  Filing  Procedures  for  Filings  of  Requests  for  Review,  Federal-  State  Joint 

 Board  on  Universal  Service,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  45,  Errata  (Com.  Car.  Bur.  rel.  Dec.  28,  2001  and  Jan.  4,  2002). 
 8  47  C.  F.  R.    1.7. 

 9  See  47  C.  F.  R.    54.  720(  b). 
 10  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.3. 
 11  Request  for  Review  at  1. 
 12  Northeast  Cellular  Telephone  Co.  v.  FCC,  897  F.  2d  1164,  1166  (D.  C.  Cir.  1990). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2241 
 3 
 COMMITMENT  DECISION  LETTER]  13  and  warns  Brandon  that  failure  to  meet  this  requirement  will  result  in  automatic  dismissal  of  your  appeal."  14 
 6.  The  particular  facts  of  this  case  do  not  rise  to  the  level  of  special  circumstances  required  for  a  deviation  from  the  general  rule.  In  light  of  the  thousands  of  applications  that  SLD 
 reviews  and  processes  each  year,  it  is  administratively  necessary  to  place  on  the  applicant  the  responsibility  of  adhering  strictly  to  its  filing  deadlines.  15  In  order  for  the  program  to  work 
 efficiently,  the  applicant  must  assume  responsibility  for  timely  submission  of  its  appeals  to  SLD  if  it  wishes  its  appeals  to  be  considered  on  the  merits.  An  applicant  must  take  responsibility  for 
 the  action  or  inaction  of  those  employees,  consultants  and  other  representatives  to  whom  it  gives  responsibility  for  submitting  timely  appeals  of  SLD  funding  decisions  on  its  behalf.  Here, 
 Brandon  argues  that  it  deserves  relief  because  it  mailed  its  appeal  after  receiving  assurances  from  an  SLD  representative  that  its  appeal  would  be  accepted  as  timely  if  it  were  postmarked  by  the 
 deadline.  We  decline  to  grant  relief  on  the  basis  of  incorrect  advice  from  SLD.  Commission  precedent  establishes  that  where  a  party  has  received  erroneous  advice,  the  government  is  not 
 estopped  from  enforcing  its  rules  in  a  manner  that  is  inconsistent  with  the  advice  provided  by  the  employee,  particularly  where  relief  is  contrary  to  a  rule.  16  Thus,  Brandon  fails  to  present  good 
 cause  as  to  why  it  could  not  timely  file  its  appeal  to  SLD.  We  therefore  find  no  basis  for  waiving  the  appeal  filing  deadline. 

 7.  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  by  Brandon  School,  Natick,  Massachusetts,  on  June  13,  2002,  and  the  request  to  waive  the  60-  day  time  limit  in  which  to  file  an  appeal  ARE 
 DENIED. 

 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 

 Mark  G.  Seifert  Deputy  Chief,  Telecommunications  Access  Policy  Division 
 Wireline  Competition  Bureau 

 13  Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter  at  2. 
 14  Id. 
 15  See  Request  for  Review  by  Anderson  School  Staatsburg,  Federal-  State  Joint  Board  on  Universal  Service,  Changes 
 to  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  National  Exchange  Carrier  Association,  File  No.  SLD-  133664,  CC  Docket  Nos.  96-  45  and  97-  21,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  25610  (Comm.  Car.  Bur.  rel.  Nov.  24,  2000),  para.  8  (  In  light  of  the  thousands  of 

 applications  that  SLD  reviews  and  processes  each  funding  year,  it  is  administratively  necessary  to  place  on  the  applicant  the  responsibility  of  understanding  all  relevant  program  rules  and  procedures.). 

 16  In  re  Mary  Ann  Salvatiello,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  6  FCC  Rcd  4705,  4707-  8,  para.  22  (1991)  (citing 
 Office  of  Personnel  Management  v.  Richmond,  497  U.  S.  1046  (1990)). 
3