*Pages 1--2 from Microsoft Word - 11455.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2129 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Request for Review of the ) Decision of the ) Universal Service Administrator by ) ) Congregation Bnos Yaakov ) File No. SLD- 147655 Lakewood, New Jersey ) ) 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, 2001 Released: September 13, 2001 By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. This Order dismisses the Request for Review of the Congregation Bnos Yaakov (Bnos Yaakov), Lakewood, New Jersey, seeking review of a decision issued by the Universal Service Administrative Company’s Schools and Libraries Division on April 18, 2000. 1 The Commission received Bnos Yaakov’s Request for Review on September 1, 2000. 2 Under section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules, any such appeal must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the decision as to which review is sought. 3 Documents are considered to be filed with the Commission only upon receipt. 4 Because the instant Request for Review was not filed within the specified 30- day period, it will be dismissed without further consideration. 2. A review of the record indicates that SLD issued two letters to Bnos Yaakov on April 18, 2000 and that both letters were mailed to Bnos Yaakov's current address. The first letter indicated that SLD had rejected Bnos Yaakov's application because it had "insufficient support resources." 5 Bnos Yaakov admits that it received this letter. 6 The other letter provided an 1 See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, Congregation Bnos Yaakov, dated April 18, 2000. 2 Letter from Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, to Federal Communications Commission, filed September 1, 2000 (Request for Review). 3 47 C. F. R. § 54. 720. On September 1, 2000, Congregation Bnos Yaakov filed an appeal with the School and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., which was also untimely filed. 4 47 C. F. R. § 1.7. 5 See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, Congregation Bnos Yaakov, dated April 18, 2000. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 2129 2 expanded description of Bnos Yaakov's failure to demonstrate sufficient resources in the areas of hardware, professional development, software, and retrofitting. 7 The more detailed letter also alerted Bnos Yaakov to the timetable and process for appealing the SLD decision. 8 3. Bnos Yaakov asserts that it did not receive the more detailed April 18, 2000 decision letter, and became aware of the decision only after having contacted SLD on August 8, 2000 and receiving a faxed copy. 9 We have held that merely stating that a letter was not received at the address provided to SLD and to which prior correspondence had been successfully mailed is insufficient grounds for reconsideration. 10 Because the record demonstrates that Bnos Yaakov received mail from SLD at the same address listed in the more detailed letter, we find no reason to deviate from this standard. 4. 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 Request for Review filed June 28, 2000, by Congregation Bnos Yaakov, Lakewood, New Jersey, IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mark G. Seifert Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division Common Carrier Bureau 6 Request for Review. 7 See Letter from the Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Co., to Rabbi Yosef Herskovits, Congregation Bnos Yaakov, dated April 18, 2000. 8 Id. 9 Request for Review. 10 See Request for Review by Whitehall City School District, Docket Nos. 96- 45 and 97- 21, DA 00- 1892 (rel. August 18, 2000); Juan Galiano, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6442, 6443 (1990) (“[ I] f the Commission were to entertain and accept unsupported arguments that letters mailed in Commission proceedings were not delivered… procedural havoc and abuse would result.”). 2