*Pages 1--14 from Microsoft Word - 59742.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Requests for Review of the ) Decision of the ) Universal Service Administrator ) ) Academia Claret, Puerto Rico, et al. ) ) Schools and Libraries Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 02- 6 Support Mechanism ) ORDER Adopted: September 21, 2006 Released: September 21, 2006 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we grant 91 appeals of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) denying applications for discounted services under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. 1 These applicants’ discount rates were reduced by USAC on the ground that they failed to correctly calculate the appropriate discount rate. As explained below, we find that the Puerto Rico private schools listed in Appendices A and B provided USAC with sufficient information to qualify for the appropriate discount rate for private schools in Puerto Rico. In addition, we find that the applicants listed in Appendices C and D were denied their requested discount rate for funding without a sufficient opportunity to provide evidence to support the specified discount rate. Accordingly, we grant these appeals, and remand the underlying applications associated with these appeals to USAC for further action consistent with this Order and require USAC to process these requests according to the specific timeframes set forth herein. II. BACKGROUND 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. 2 The applicant, after developing a 1 In this Order, we use the term “appeals” to generally refer to requests for review of decisions, or waivers related to such decisions, issued by the Administrator. 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 47 C. F. R. § 54.505. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 2 technology plan, files the FCC Form 470 (Form 470) with USAC to request discounted services. 3 The Form 470 is posted on USAC’s schools and libraries website for at least 28 days, during which time interested service providers may submit bids to provide the requested services. 4 After entering into a contract for eligible services, the applicant files the FCC Form 471 (Form 471) to notify USAC of the services that have been ordered, the carriers with whom the applicant has entered into an agreement, the eligible discount rate, and an estimate of funds needed to cover the discounts to be given for eligible services. 5 3. In accordance with the Commission’s rules, the discount available to a particular applicant is determined by indicators of poverty and high cost. 6 The level of poverty for schools and school districts is measured by the percentage of student enrollment that is eligible for a free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or a federally approved alternative mechanism. 7 A school’s high- cost status is derived from rules that classify it as urban or rural. 8 The rules provide a matrix reflecting both a school’s urban or rural status and the percentage of its students eligible for the school lunch program to establish a school’s discount rate, ranging from 20 percent to 90 percent, to be applied to eligible services. 9 4. Applicants are required to provide information that establishes their appropriate discount rate. 10 Pursuant to its operating procedures, USAC performs a Program Integrity Assurance (PIA) review to verify information contained in each application. 11 During this process, USAC may ask for additional 3 If the technology plan has not been approved when the applicant files the Form 470, the applicant must certify that it understands that the technology plan must be approved prior to commencement of service. 47 C. F. R. § 54. 504( b)( 2)( vii). 4 47 C. F. R. § 54.504( b)( 4). 5 See 47 C. F. R. § 54. 504( c). One purpose of this form is for the applicant to complete the discount calculation worksheet and for the applicant to indicate its discount percentage. 6 47 C. F. R. § 54.505( b). 7 47 C. F. R. § 54.505( b)( 1). 8 47 C. F. R. § 54.505( b)( 3)( i), (ii). 9 47 C. F. R. § 54.505( c). 10 Block 4 of the FCC Form 471 asks the school to provide information regarding the school’s status as rural or urban, the number of students enrolled in the school, and the number of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). See Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Service Ordered and Certification Form, OMB 3060- 0806 (October 2000) (FCC Form 471). Schools choosing not to use an actual count of students eligible for the NSLP may use only the federally approved alternative mechanisms contained in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107- 110). This rule states, in relevant part, that private schools without access to the same poverty data that public schools use to count children from low- income families may use comparable data “( 1) [c] ollected through alternative means such as a survey” or “( 2) [f] rom existing sources such as AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] or tuition scholarship programs.” See 34 C. F. R. § 200.78( a)( 2). Schools using a federally approved alternative mechanism may use participation in other income- assistance programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, or Supplementary Security Income (SSI), to determine the number of students that would be eligible for the NSLP. See Instructions for Completing the Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form (FCC Form 471), OMB 3060- 0806 (October 2000) (Form 471 Instructions) at 8- 9. 11 See Schools and Libraries website regarding Program Integrity Assurance Review (PIA Review), http:// www. universalservice. org/ sl/ applicants/ step08/ default. aspx. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 3 documentation to support the statements made on the application. USAC routinely requests that applicants provide documentation supporting their assertions regarding their student bodies’ eligibility for the NSLP or alternative methods permitted by the rules governing the discount calculation. 12 5. In the instant appeals, the Commission has under consideration multiple requests to reverse USAC’s determination to deny their discount rate for funding under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. 13 USAC denied the applicants’ requests on the ground that they failed to calculate properly the appropriate discount rate. Petitioners request review of these decisions. III. DISCUSSION 6. In this Order, we grant 91 appeals of decisions denying requests for funding from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. Petitioners generally argue that they provided sufficient information to support their requested discount rate, but that USAC rejected their requests in part and reduced their requested discount rate. For the reasons discussed below, we grant these pending appeals and remand the underlying applications associated with these appeals to USAC for further action consistent with this Order. We base our decision on the facts and circumstances of each specific case. 7. The cases under review in this Order fall into two categories: private schools in Puerto Rico and schools and libraries elsewhere in the United States. We consider these categories separately because, as discussed in more detail below, private schools in Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands are subject to a special rule for reporting NSLP data. 14 8. Puerto Rico private schools. These 69 Requests for Review involve a discount calculation issue specific to private schools in Puerto Rico. 15 According to USAC, these applicants, all private schools in Puerto Rico, failed to establish that they qualified for the discount rates sought. The appeals in this category can be divided into two groups: 1) applications in which the applicant requested a discount percentage of 80 percent or less 16 and 2) applications in which the applicant requested a discount 12 See 47 C. F. R. § 54. 505( b)( 1), (2). 13 See Appendices A- D. 14 See 7 C. F. R. § 245.4. 15 See Appendices A and B. 16 Request for Review of Academia Claret; Request for Review of Academia Cristo Rey; Request of Review of Academia Nuestra Senora de la Providencia; Request for Review of Academia San Ignacio de Loyola; Request for Review of Academia San Jorge; Request for Review of Academia Santa Monica; Request for Review of Colegio Calasanz; Request for Review of Colegio CEDAS; Request for Review of Colegio Madre Cabrini; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestra Senora de Altagracia; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestra Senora de Belen; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestra Senora del Carmen; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestra Senora del Perpetuo Socorro de Humacao; Request for Review of Colegio Padre Berrios; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestra Senora del Rosario; Request for Review of Colegio Reina de Los Angeles; Request for Review of Colegio San Felipe; Request for Review of Colegio San Francisco de Asis; Request for Review of Colegio Sangrados Corazones 5- 12; Request for Review of Colegio San Ignacio de Loyola; Request for Review of Colegio San Luis Rey; Request for Review of Colegio San Juan Bosco; Request for Review of Colegio San Juan Bosco; Request for Review of Colegio San Pedro Martir; Request for Review of Colegio Santa Cruz; Request for Review of Colegio San Vincent de Paul; Request for Review of Colegio San Vincent de Paul; Request for Review of Escuela Superior Catolica Bayamon. 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 4 percentage greater than 80 percent. 17 In each case, USAC determined that the applicants’ documentation did not support the requested discount rate. USAC subsequently reduced the funding commitments, and the petitioners each filed Requests for Review. 18 After reviewing the record, we disagree with USAC’s determination that the petitioners did not provide adequate documentation to establish the original requested discount rate. 9. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has created an exception for Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands regarding the reporting of NSLP data based upon a survey of the private schools within Puerto Rico. 19 As a result of the USDA survey, all private schools in Puerto Rico qualify for the 80 percent discount, unless the school is eligible for a greater discount. 20 Here, 30 of the 69 Puerto Rico petitioners requested a discount of 80 percent or less. 21 Based on the established Puerto Rico private school discount, USAC should have funded such requests at the requested discount level. Thus, we find that USAC erred when it denied the applicants’ funding. 10. Furthermore, based on the facts and circumstances of these specific cases, we disagree with USAC’s determination that the Petitioners seeking a discount greater than 80 percent did not provide adequate documentation to establish the originally requested discount levels. USAC provided the applicants with no explanation for denying the requested discount rate. 22 The Form 471 Instructions inform applicants that private schools may use surveys or comparable poverty data or data demonstrating participation in other income- assistance programs. 23 Petitioners submitted survey documentation that supports the various discount levels originally requested. 24 In accordance with Form 471 instructions, the 17 Request for Review of Academia de Ensenanza Moderna, Inc.; Request for Review of Academia del Espiritu Santo; Request for Review of Academia Santa Teresita de Naranjito, Inc.; Request for Review of Colegio Angeles Custodios; Request for Review of Colegio Catolico Notre Dame; Request for Review of Colegio Catolico Notre Dame Elemental; Request for Review of Colegio Corazon de Maria; Request for Review of Colegio de la Salle; Request for Review of Colegio de la Inmaculada; Request for Review of Colegio de Parvulos San Idelfonso; Request for Review of Colegio Lourdes; Request for Review of Colegio Maria Auxiliadora; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestra Senora de Lourdes; Request for Review of Colegio Nuestro Senora del Perpetuo Socorro de Humacao; Request for Review of Colegio Sagrada Familia; Request for Review of Colegio San Antonio Abad; Request for Review of Colegio San Juan Bosco; Request for Review of Colegio Santa Clara; Request for Review of Colegio Santa Maria del Camino; Request for Review of Colegio Santiago Apostol; Request for Review of Hogar Escuela Sor Maria Rafaela. 18 See Appendices A and B. 19 See 7 C. F. R. § 245.4. Because Puerto Rico schools “provide free meals or milk to all children in schools under [its] jurisdiction regardless of the economic need of the child’s family, they are not required to make individual eligibility determinations or publicly announce eligibility criteria.” Id. The rule permits Puerto Rico to conduct a statistical survey to determine the number of students eligible for free or reduced price meals. In accordance with this rule, a different percentage is calculated for public and private schools. 20 See 7 C. F. R. § 245.4. 21 See Appendix A. 22 USAC merely stated that the discount rate was corrected. See, e. g., Colegio San Luis Rey, File No. SLD- 412366, Funding Commitment Decision Letter; Colegio San Vincent de Paul, File No. SLD- 407671, Funding Commitment Decision Letter. 23 See Form 471 Instructions. 24 See, e. g., Letter from Bernardine Fontanez, Colegio Catolico Notre Dame, to Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, dated Dec. 9, 2004; Letter from Madeline Melgen, Colegio Madre Cabrini, to Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, dated March 22, 2002. 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 5 survey documentation included: the total number of students; the total number of surveys sent out; the number of surveys returned; the total number of students qualified for NSLP per the returned surveys; a sample copy of a completed survey, with the personal information crossed out for confidentiality; and a signed certification. 25 Therefore, we find that the applicants provided documentation to support the requested discount levels. In addition, at this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, misuse of funds, or a failure to adhere to core program requirements. Based on the Puerto Rico private school discount and our review of the record, we grant the Requests for Review listed in Appendices A and B and remand these applications to USAC to take appropriate action consistent with this Order. 26 To ensure these appeals are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its processing of the applications listed in Appendices A and B no later than 60 days from release of this Order. 27 11. Schools and libraries elsewhere in the United States. The 22 appeals in this category can be divided into two groups: 1) appeals for which USAC determined that the supporting documentation was insufficient to support the requested discount level and 2) appeals for which USAC did not give applicants a sufficient amount of time to respond to requests for supporting documentation. In the first category, three applicants were specifically asked by USAC to submit additional information to support the number of students reported as eligible for free or reduced lunch. 28 Based on the responses provided by the applicants, USAC determined that these petitioners’ funding requests were not supported by sufficient documentation. 29 Specifically, USAC denied these applications because a New York state NSLP form had a misleading format that prevented USAC from accurately calculating the percentage of students eligible for the NSLP program. 30 The explanation provided by the State of New York was late, but supported the applicants’ originally requested discount percentage. 31 It appears from the record that the applicants submitted the information they had in a timely manner and USAC should therefore accept the late- filed information to determine the correct discount rate. 32 25 Id. 26 We estimate that the appeals in Appendices A and B involve disputes over approximately $1. 2 million in funding for Funding Years 2002- 2005. We note that USAC has already reserved sufficient funds to address outstanding appeals. See, e. g., Universal Service Administrative Company, Federal Universal Service Support Mechanisms Fund Size Projections for the Third Quarter 2006, dated May 2, 2006. 27 If USAC requires further documentation in order to calculate the correct discount rate, it shall provide applicants with a 15- day opportunity to file such documentation. 28 Request for Review of United Talmudical Academy; Request for Review of Yeshiva Jesode Hatorah; Request for Review of Yeshiva Tzemach Tzadik Viznitz. 29 See Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Jacob Klagsbrun, United Talmudical Academy, dated October 21, 2002; Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Joseph Lefkowitz, Yeshiva Jesode Hatorah, dated April 4, 2001; Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, to Chany Lowy, Yeshiva Tzemach Tzadik Viznitz, dated October 21, 2002. 30 Id. 31 See Letter from Sandy Fruhling, The Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, to Yeshiva Jesode Hatorah, dated Feb. 16, 2001; Letter from Richard Connell, The New York State Education Department, to Joseph Lefkowitz, Yeshiva Jesode Hatorah, dated Aug. 8, 2002. See, also, Letter of Appeal from United Talmudical Academy, Dec. 11, 2002; Letter of Appeal from Yeshiva Jesode Hatorah, Aug. 13, 2002; Letter of Appeal from Yeshiva Tzemach Tzadik Viznitz, Dec. 16, 2002. 32 See Letter from Jacob Klagsbrun, United Talmudical Academy, to Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, filed March 4, 2002; Letter from Joseph Lefkowitz, Yeshiva Jesode Hatorah, filed 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 6 12. In the second category, USAC’s Schools and Libraries Division asked 19 applicants to submit additional information to support the requested discount rate. 33 Based upon our review of the record, it appears that USAC improperly reduced the requested discount rate without providing the applicants with a sufficient opportunity to provide supporting evidence. For example, in one case, the applicant complied with USAC’s request to provide requested information by next day Federal Express; however, the Administrator’s Decision on Appeal referred to this filing as “new information” and it was not accepted. 34 In addition, several appeals indicate that the applicants submitted some of the requested information, but were unable to fully comply with the document request within USAC’s permitted time period. 35 In other cases, there is no explanation in the record why USAC denied the requested discount rate. 36 Finally, several appeals seem to contain inconsistent findings by USAC regarding crucial issues. 37 Feb. 19, 2001; Letter from Mrs. Lowen, Yeshiva Tzemach Tzadik Viznitz, to Schools and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company, filed March 20, 2002. 33 See Appendix D. Request for Review of Charlotte- Mecklenberg Schools; Request for Review of Crawford County Library System; Request for Review of Davey School District 12; Request for Review of Erie 1 BOCES; Request for Review of Fort Wayne Community School District; Request for Review of Holgate School District; Request for Review of Life Skills Center of Metro Cleveland; Request for Review of Life Skills Center of Summit County; Request for Review of Life Skills Youngstown; Request for Review of The Lotus Academy; Request for Review of Martin’s Ferry School District; Request for Review of Miami- Dade County Public Schools; Request for Review of Montessori Day Public School Chartered- Mountainside; Request for Review of Municipal Telephone Exchange; Request for Review of Nazareth Regional High School; Request for Review of Orleans/ Niagra BOCES; Request for Review of Salesian High School; Request for Review of Western New York Regional Information Center (on behalf of Lackawanna City School District). 34 See Western NY Regional Information Center, Orleans/ Niagara BOCES, File No. SLD- 263445. 35 See, e. g., Montessori Day Public School Chartered, File No. SLD- 417776, Administrator’s Decision on Appeal (Oct. 4, 2004) at 2 (survey was conducted late); Lotus Academy, File No. SLD- 330213 (survey was not completed within the seven- day period provided by USAC); Erie 1 BOCES, File Nos. SLD- 382697, 382717, 382562 (the information submitted during the application review process resulted in discount calculation of 67 percent instead of the originally requested 70 percent); Lackawanna City School District, File No. SLD- 327211 (applicant requested an incorrect discount on the Form 471 and contends USAC should have corrected this error due to additional information in the application). 36 See, e. g., Fort Wayne Community School District, File Nos. SLD- 344348, 337694, 381347; Martin Ferry School District, File Nos. SLD- 465077, 481089; Miami- Dade County Public Schools, File Nos. SLD- 428945, 417856, 417352, 389949, 416173; Holgate School District, File No. SLD- 484696. 37 See Nazareth Regional High School, File No. SLD- 431907, 428860 (USAC denied the requested 80 percent discount rate claiming that the survey lacked the student grade, family size, and income, but on appeal, the school stated that the student survey included these sections. The record indicates that the survey submitted during the PIA process was missing the student’s grade, but not the family size and income); Davey School District 12, File No. SLD- 340079 (USAC denied the requested 90 percent discount level because the survey forms did not contain the address of the surveyed families; the record on appeal shows that the address is part of the form). In another case, there appears to be an inconsistency on the part of the schools and libraries division of USAC. See Municipal Telephone Exchange, File No. SLD- 237704 (contending that the city of Baltimore received a 78 percent discount, yet the Baltimore city library, Enoch Pratt Free Library, received a 73 percent discount). Finally, USAC appears to have disregarded what its employees specifically advised the applicant. See Crawford County Library System, File No. SLD- 338140 (Crawford County Library System (Crawford) accidentally selected the 20 percent discount, which is the default for the program. The record indicates two USAC employees informed the librarian that the discount rate for Crawford would be adjusted from the default 20 percent to 67 percent; however, USAC funded only 20 percent). 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 7 13. Balancing the facts and circumstances of these specific cases as described below, we find that good cause exists to grant these appeals and remand them back to USAC for further processing. 38 In several cases, it appears that the applicants may have fully complied with USAC’s procedures. Furthermore, any violations involved a USAC administrative deadline, not a Commission rule. As the Commission has noted previously, given that these violations were procedural, not substantive, we find that the reduction in funding is not warranted. 39 Although deadlines are necessary for the efficient administration of the program, in these cases, the applicants have demonstrated that rigid adherence to USAC’s procedures does not further the purposes of section 254( h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or serve the public interest. 40 We find that, for these applicants, denying their request for funding would create undue hardship and prevent these schools and libraries from receiving E- rate funding. Notably, at this time, there is no evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse, misuse of funds or failure to adhere to core program requirements. 14. To ensure these issues are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its review of the applications listed in Appendices C and D, and issue an award or denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 days from release of this Order. Specifically, USAC must carefully review each case and inform applicants of any errors that are detected in their applications, along with a specific explanation of how the applicant can remedy such errors. USAC should not deny those funding requests where the applicant made a good faith effort to comply with the survey guidelines but did not include some information on the student survey regarding the student’s grade, address or number of persons in the household. 41 USAC shall provide applicants with a limited 15- day opportunity to file additional documentation, if necessary, in order to support the applicant’s calculation of the correct discount rate and should accept information already provided by the applicant that USAC deemed late. In future applications involving discount calculation issues, USAC must inform applicants of any errors regarding the discount rate calculation it identifies, along with specific explanation of how the applicant can remedy such errors. USAC must give applicants a reasonable period of time in which to provide requested information. 15. Finally, we are committed to guarding against waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensuring that funds disbursed through the E- rate program are used for appropriate purposes. Although we grant the appeals addressed here, this action does not affect the authority of the Commission or USAC to conduct audits or investigations to determine compliance with the E- rate program rules and requirements. Because audits or investigations may provide information showing that a beneficiary or service provider failed to comply with the statute or Commission rules, such proceedings can reveal instances in which universal service funds were improperly disbursed or in a manner inconsistent with the statute or the Commission’s rules. To the extent we find that funds were not used properly, we will require USAC to 38 We estimate that the appeals in Appendices C and D involve disputes of approximately $3. 9 million in funding for Funding Years 2000- 2005, and we note that USAC has already reserved sufficient funds to address outstanding applications. 39 Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Bishop Perry Middle School, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD- 487170, et al., CC Docket No. 02- 6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5316, para. 9 (rel. May 19, 2006) (Bishop Perry Middle School). 40 47 U. S. C. § 254( h). The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 104, 110 Stat. 56, amended the Communications Act of 1934. 41 See Schools and Libraries website regarding Survey Guidelines for Alternative Discount Mechanisms, http:// www. universalservice. org/ sl/ applicants/ step05/ alternative- discount- mechanisms. aspx# 3. The USAC website provides applicants with guidelines regarding survey content. The guidelines state that student surveys must include: 1) address of family, 2) grade level of each child, 3) size of family, and 4) income level of the parents. 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 8 recover such funds through its normal processes. We emphasize that we retain the discretion to evaluate the uses of monies disbursed through the E- rate program and to determine on a case- by- case basis that waste, fraud, or abuse of program funds occurred and that recovery is warranted. We remain committed to ensuring the integrity of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1- 4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 151- 154 and 254, and sections 1.3, and 54.722( a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 1.3 and 54.722( a), and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0. 91 and 0.291, that the Requests for Review as listed in Appendices A, B, C, and D of this Order ARE GRANTED and ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this Order. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1- 4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 151- 154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0. 91 and 0.291, USAC SHALL COMPLETE its review of each remanded application listed in the Appendix and ISSUE an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from release of this Order. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas J. Navin Chief Wireline Competition Bureau 8 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 9 Appendix A Applicant Name Applicant Number SLD Funding Year Requested Eligible Discount Approved Discount Academia Claret 401699 2004 50 20 Academia Cristo Rey 399717 2004 80 20 Academia Nuestra Senora de la Providencia 413108 2004 60 20 Academia San Ignacio de Loyola 406954 2004 80 20 Academia San Jorge 421080 2004 80 20 Academia Santa Monica 424281 2004 50 20 Colegio Calasanz 412313 2004 60 20 Colegio CEDAS 414199 2004 80 20 Colegio Madre Cabrini 290106 2004 60 20 Colegio Madre Cabrini 412620 2004 60 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora de Altagracia 410127 2004 80 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora de Belen 423510 2004 80 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora del Carmen 412224 2004 60 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora del Carmen 457126, 457077 2005 80 70 Colegio Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe 399002 2004 80 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora de la Caridad 411091 2004 60 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora del Perpetuo Socorro de Humacao 450318, 404239 2005 80 70 Colegio Nuestra Senora del Rosario 420579 2004 80 20 Colegio Padre Berrios 412273 2004 80 20 Colegio Reina de Los Angeles 414847 2004 80 20 Colegio San Felipe 456788 2005 80 70 Colegio San Francisco de Asis 451668 2005 80 70 Colegio Sangrados Corazones 5- 12 414579 2004 60 20 Colegio San Ignacio de Loyola 421549 2004 80 20 Colegio San Luis Rey 412366 2004 80 20 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 10 Colegio San Juan Bosco 414602 2004 80 20 Colegio San Pedro Martir 424963 2004 80 20 Colegio Santa Cruz 41313 2004 80 20 Colegio San Vincent de Paul 407671 2004 80 20 Escuela Superior Catolica Bayamon 408984 2004 60 20 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 11 Appendix B Applicant Name Applicant Number SLD Funding Year Requested Eligible Discount Approved Discount Academia de Ensenanza Moderna, Inc. 448876 2005 90 70 Academia de Ensenanza Moderna, Inc. 452309 2005 90 70 Academia del Espiritu Santo 406762 2004 90 20 Academia del Espiritu Santo 406772 2004 90 20 Academia Santa Teresita de Naranjito, Inc. 290615 2004 90 20 Colegio Angeles Custodios 423537 2004 90 20 Colegio Angeles Custodios 423519 2004 90 20 Colegio Catolico Notre Dame 463208 2005 90 70 Colegio Catolico Notre Dame Elemental 400866 2004 90 20 Colegio Corazon de Maria 408830 2004 90 20 Colegio Corazon de Maria 408740 2004 90 20 Colegio Corazon de Maria 405824, 405859 2004 90 20 Colegio de la Salle 415491 2004 90 20 Colegio de la Salle 415141 2004 90 20 Colegio de la Inmaculada 410117 2004 90 20 Colegio de la Inmaculada 410114 2004 90 20 Colegio de Parvulos San Idelfonso 410189 2004 90 20 Colegio de Parvulos San Idelfonso 410164 2004 90 20 Colegio Lourdes 425310 2004 90 20 Colegio Maria Auxiliadora 399296 2004 90 20 Colegio Maria Auxiliadora 423477 2004 90 20 Colegio Maria Auxiliadora 423955 2004 90 20 Colegio Maria Auxiliadora 423483 2004 90 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora de Lourdes 412391 2004 90 20 Colegio Nuestra Senora de Lourdes 412425 2004 90 20 Colegio Nuestro Senora del Perpetuo Socorro de Humacao 404171 2004 90 20 Colegio Sagrada Familia 413456 2004 90 20 11 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 12 Colegio Sagrada Familia 402642, 402921 2004 90 20 Colegio Sangrada Familia 454052 2005 90 70 Colegio San Antonio Abad 294102 2004 90 60 Colegio San Juan Bosco 457034 2005 90 70 Colegio Santa Clara 412313 2004 90 20 Colegio Santa Clara 410113 2004 90 20 Colegio Santa Maria Del Camino 423759 2004 90 20 Colegio Santa Maria Del Camino 423706 2004 90 20 Colegio Santiago Apóstol 401068, 401050 2004 90 20 Colegio Santiago Apóstol 410769 2004 90 20 Hogar Escuela Sor Maria Rafaela 470896 2005 90 70 Hogar Escuela Sor Maria Rafaela 470970 2005 90 70 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 13 Appendix C Applicant Name Applicant Number SLD Funding Year Requested Eligible Discount Approved Discount United Talmudical Academy 222167 2001 90 80 Yeshiva Jesode Hatorah 204874 2000 90 80 Yeshiva Tzemach Tzadik Viznitz 256095 2001 90 80 13 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1907 14 Appendix D Applicant Name Applicant Number SLD Funding Year Requested Eligible Discount Approved Discount Charlotte- Mecklenburg Schools 443813 2005 66 63 Crawford County Library System 338140 2003 60 20 Davey School District 12 340079 2003 90 80 Erie 1 BOCES 382697, 382717, 382562 2003 70 67 Fort Wayne Community School District 344348 2003 72 67 Fort Wayne Community School District 337694, 381347 2003 72 67 Holgate School District 484696 2005 64 55 Martin’s Ferry School District 465077, 481089 2005 74 67 Life Skills Center of Metro Cleveland 459134 2005 90 20 Life Skills Center of Summit County 458589 2005 90 70 Life Skills Youngstown 459034, 457132 2005 80 20 The Lotus Academy 330213 2002 90 50 Miami- Dade County Public Schools 428945, 417856, 417352, 389949, 416173 2004 90 60 Montessori Day Public School Chartered-Mountainside 417776 2004 50 20 Municipal Telephone Exchange 237704 2001 78 73 Nazareth Regional High School 431907, 428860 2004 80 20 Orleans/ Niagara BOCES 263445 2001 50 20 Salesian High School 487345 2005 60 20 Western New York Regional info Center (on behalf of Lackawanna City School District) 327211 2002 90 82 14