*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 5500.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  2807 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  ) 
 ) 
 Request  for  Review  of  the  ) 
 Decision  of  the  ) 
 Universal  Service  Administrator  by  ) 
 ) 
 Canute  Independent  School  District  11  )  File  No.  SLD-  118157 
 Canute,  Oklahoma  ) 
 ) 
 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:  December  13,  2000  Released:  December  14,  2000 
 By  the  Accounting  Policy  Division,  Common  Carrier  Bureau: 
 1.  The  Accounting  Policy  Division  has  under  consideration  a  Letter  of  Appeal  filed 
 by  Canute  Independent  School  District  11  (Canute),  Canute,  Oklahoma,  on  May  1,  2000, 
 pursuant  to  section  54.719(  c)  of  the  Commission’s  rules.  1  Canute  seeks  review  of  a  decision  of 
 the  Schools  and  Libraries  Division  (SLD)  of  the  Universal  Service  Administrative  Company, 
 denying  in  part  Canute’s  request  for  funding  of  internal  connection  services.  For  the  reasons 
 discussed  below,  we  grant  the  appeal  in  part  and  remand  to  SLD. 


 2.  Canute  requests  review  of  a  decision  by  SLD  to  reduce  the  amount  of  Canute’s 
 funding  request  because  SLD  concluded  that  components  of  the  request  included  support  for  an 
 ineligible  Wide  Area  Network  (WAN).  2  As  in  Terral  School  District  3,  SLD  denied  support  for 
 certain  components  despite  their  integration  with  routers  deemed  eligible  for  support  by  SLD.  3 


 1  Letter  from  Howard  Kuchta,  Kellogg  Consulting,  L.  L.  C.  (on  behalf  of  Canute  Independent  School  District  11), 
 to  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  filed  May  1,  2000  (Letter  of  Appeal).  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  Letter  from  Schools  and  Libraries  Division,  Universal  Service  Administrative  Company,  to  Howard  Kuchta, 


 Canute  Independent  School  District  11,  dated  October  5,  1999  (Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter);  Letter 
 from  Schools  and  Libraries  Division,  Universal  Service  Administrative  Company,  to  Howard  Kuchta,  Canute 
 Independent  School  District  11,  dated  April  7,  2000  (Administrator’s  Decision  on  Appeal). 


 3  Terral  School  District  3,  CC  Docket  Nos.  96-  45  and  97-  21,  Order,  DA  00-  2123  (rel.  September  19,  2000). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  2807 
 2 
 Consistent  with  Terral  School  District  3,  and  in  the  absence  of  an  explanation  by  SLD  of  the  basis 
 for  its  decision,  we  conclude  that  the  record  does  not  support  SLD’s  finding  of  ineligibility. 
 Accordingly,  we  shall  remand  to  SLD  for  further  consideration.  4 


 3.  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  appeal  filed  by  the  Canute  Independent  School  District  11,  Canute,  Oklahoma, 
 on  May  1,  2000  IS  GRANTED  to  the  extent  provided  herein.  We  direct  the  Schools  and 
 Libraries  Division  to  review  Canute’s  funding  application  and,  if  warranted,  to  issue  a  revised 
 Funding  Commitment  Decision  Letter  in  accordance  with  the  above-  stated  decision. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Mark  G.  Seifert 
 Deputy  Chief,  Accounting  Policy  Division 
 Common  Carrier  Bureau 


 4  As  in  Terral  School  District  3,  we  do  not  suggest  that  the  circumstances  require  a  decision  in  Canute’s  favor, 
 finding  only  that  under  the  circumstances  SLD’s  failure  to  explain  the  basis  for  its  decision  requires  remand. 
2