Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Request for Waiver ) of the Decision of the ) Universal Service Administrator by ) ) Barberton City School District ) File Nos. SLD-400938, et al. Barberton, Ohio, et al. ) ) Schools and Libraries Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 02-6 Support Mechanism ) ORDER Adopted: October 30, 2008 Released: October 30, 2008 By the Acting Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this order, we grant requests by 18 schools and libraries (collectively, Petitioners) for review of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) denying applications or rescinding funding for discounted services under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism (also known as the E-rate program).1 USAC denied the Petitioners’ applications for Funding Years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 on the grounds that they violated the Commission’s requirement that a legally binding agreement be in place when the FCC Form 471 application is submitted.2 We also grant one appeal from an applicant that had its funding commitment reduced on the grounds that an existing contract expired without the applicant posting a new FCC Form 470 for services to be provided for the remainder of the funding year.3 Upon review of these records, we find that the issues raised in seven appeals were recently addressed by the Commission in the Adams County Order.4 We further find that 1 See Appendix for a complete list of Petitioners. Section 54.719(c) of the Commission’s rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the Universal Service Administrative Company may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 2 One applicant, Barberton City School District (Barberton), was denied funding because USAC found that the contract expiration date on its FCC Form 471 changed from the previous year’s FCC Form 471. While the changed expiration date was the stated reason for the denial, USAC also found, during its Program Integrity Assurance (PIA) review, that Barberton entered into a contract after the FCC Form 471 certification postmark date. See infra para. 5. Funding Years run from July through June, e.g. Funding Year 2004 ran from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005. 3 Request for Review of Middle Georgia Wilderness Institute. 4 See Request for Waiver of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Adams County School District 14, Commerce City, CO, et al., Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD- 425151, 425211, 425303, 425352, 426285, et al., CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 6019 (2007) (Adams (continued…) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 2 the appeals of 11 Petitioners should be granted on the merits. We therefore remand the underlying applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order. To ensure that the underlying applications are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its review of each application listed in the appendix and issue an award or denial based upon a complete review and analysis no later than 90 days from the release of this order.5 II. BACKGROUND 2. Under the E-rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries may apply for discounts for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections.6 The Commission’s rules provide that an eligible school, library, or consortium must seek competitive bids for all services eligible for support.7 In accordance with our rules, an applicant must file with USAC an FCC Form 470 requesting services.8 After the FCC Form 470 is posted to USAC’s web site, the applicant must wait 28 days before entering into an agreement with a service provider for the requested services and submitting an FCC Form 471.9 Section 54.504(c) of the Commission’s rules also states that the FCC Form 471 requesting support for the services ordered by the applicant shall be submitted “upon signing a contract for eligible services.”10 Specifically, the instructions for FCC Form 471 state that applicants must have a “signed contract” or a “legally binding agreement” with the service provider “for all services” ordered on the FCC Form 471.11 ________________________ (….continued from previous page) County Order) (finding good cause to grant a limited waiver of the Commission’s contract rules and procedures for several applicants). 5 In performing a complete review and analysis of each underlying application, USAC shall either grant the underlying application before it, or, if denying the application, provide the applicant with any and all grounds for denial. 6 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503. 7 47 C.F.R. § 54.504. There is one limited exception for existing, binding contracts signed on or before July 10, 1997. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.511(c). 8 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b); see also Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services Requested and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (October 2004) (FCC Form 470). 9 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(4); see also Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (November 2004) (FCC Form 471). 10 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c); see also Request for Review of Waldwick School District, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanisms, File No. SLD-234540, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 22994, 22995, para. 3 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2003) (Waldwick Order); Request for Review of St. Joseph High School, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanisms, File No. SLD-234540, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22499, 22500-01, para. 4 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2002) (St. Joseph Order). 11 Instructions for Completing the Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 at 19 (November 2001) (FCC Form 471 Instructions). There are two exceptions to this rule: non-contracted tariffed services and certain month-to-month services. If the services are month-to-month, applicants can instead submit copies of standard monthly bills as proof that they have binding, legal arrangements with service providers. Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 3 3. To ensure that applicants are in compliance with our competitive bidding rules, applicants must file a new FCC Form 470 when the existing contract ends.12 When contracts expire at the end of the original term, the applicant must post a new FCC Form 470 for services provided beyond the contract expiration date.13 An applicant does not need to post a new FCC Form 470 each year when it has a multi-year contract or when exercising a contract’s voluntary renewal provision if the applicant indicated that it was seeking a contract with those terms when it originally filed the FCC Form 470.14 4. Eighteen Petitioners have requested a waiver of our rules or a review of USAC’s decision to deny or rescind funding because they did not have a legally binding agreement in place when their FCC Form 471 application was submitted or because their contract expired before the end of the funding year.15 III. DISCUSSION 5. We grant relief to 18 Petitioners seeking a reversal of USAC’s decisions to deny or rescind their requests for universal service funding under the E-rate program. For seven Petitioners, we grant a limited waiver of section 54.504(c) of our rules and remand the underlying applications associated with these appeals to USAC for further action consistent with this order.16 We grant 11 Petitioners’ appeals on the merits because these Petitioners demonstrated that they had in place contracts that met the Commission’s rules and procedures when submitting their FCC Forms 471. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or the petitioners’ applications.17 We remind USAC of its obligation to independently determine whether the disbursement of universal service funds would be consistent with program requirements, Commission rules and orders, or applicable statutes and to decline to disburse funds where this standard is not met. To ensure that the underlying applications are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its review of each 12 See Request for Review of New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanisms, File No. SLD-287615, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 8159, 8160-61, para. 5 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2005) (New Albany-Floyd County Order). 13 Id. 14 USAC website, Contract Guidance, http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/contract%5Fguidance.asp (retrieved Aug. 11, 2008). 15 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c). Although there is no specific provision in the Commission’s rules that requires applicants to file a new Form 470 for services that extend beyond the contract expiration date, this principle is implicit in the program requirement that all services funded by the schools and libraries program be competitively bid. See 47 C.F.R. 54.504(a). 16 The Commission may waive any provision of its rules on its own motion and for good cause shown. 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. A rule may be waived where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular). In addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157, (D.C. Cir. 1969), affirmed by WAIT Radio v. FCC, 459 F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972). In sum, 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. Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. 17 Additionally, nothing in this order is intended: (1) to authorize or require payment of any claim that previously may have been released by a service provider or applicant, including in a civil settlement or plea agreement with the United States; or (2) to authorize or require payment to any person or entity that has been debarred from participation in the E-rate program. Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 4 application listed in the appendix and issue an award or denial based upon a complete review and analysis no later than 90 days from the release of this order. 6. Appeals Granted by Waiver. Based on the facts and circumstances of these specific cases, we find that good cause exists to grant a limited waiver of section 54.504(c) of the Commission’s rules for six Petitioners: Barberton; Coffee County School District; Kings River Elementary School District; Manatee County School District; Midwest City-Del City Independent School District; and Urban Day School.18 These Petitioners claim that their employees erred or they misunderstood the rules.19 Specifically, Barberton certified its FCC Form 471 three days before the contract was awarded to its service provider.20 Coffee County School District submitted its FCC Form 471 the evening before signing its contract, mistakenly believing that USAC would consider the form submitted the next business day.21 Kings River Elementary School District signed its contract 10 days after submitting its FCC Form 471, but had written a signed and dated acceptance letter before the FCC Form 471 was certified.22 Manatee County School District had a valid Funding Year 2005 multi-year contract in place for the relevant funding period, but mistakenly reposted for the same services in subsequent years and executed new contracts each year, including one contract that was not signed by the applicant when it filed its Funding Year 2006 FCC Form 471.23 Midwest City-Del City Independent School District entered into a five-year agreement, renewable on an annual basis, in Funding Year 2005 with its service provider and inadvertently signed a contract renewal three days after certifying its FCC Form 471 in Funding Year 2007.24 Urban Day School’s service provider signature date and the effective date of the agreement were both February 7, 2007, before the FCC Form 471 was certified on February 8, 2007.25 Urban Day School, however, did not sign the contract until five days after the FCC Form 471 was certified.26 7. As the Commission found in the Adams County Order, these mistakes do not warrant the complete rejection of these Petitioners’ applications for E-rate funding.27 Although the record demonstrates that Petitioners’ contracts had minor errors or were not signed and dated by both parties before the Petitioners filed their FCC Forms 471, they all had some form of an agreement in place during the relevant funding year prior to the filing of their applications.28 Importantly, these appeals do not 18 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c). 19 See Request for Review by Barberton City School District; Request for Review of Coffee County School District; Request for Review of Kings River Elementary School District; Request for Review of Manatee County School District; Request for Review of Midwest City-Del City Independent School District; Request for Review of Urban Day School. 20 See FCC Form 471, Barberton City School District (certified Jan. 30, 2004) (Barberton FCC Form 471). 21 See Request for Review of Coffee County School District at 2. 22 See FCC Form 471, Kings River Elementary School District (certified Feb. 6, 2007) (Kings River FCC Form 471); Request for Review by Kings River Elementary School District at 1-3. 23 See Request for Review of Manatee County School District at 2-3. 24 Request for Review of Midwest City-Del City Independent School District at 2. 25 See FCC Form 471, Urban Day School (certified Feb. 8, 2007) (Urban Day School FCC Form 471); Request for Review of Urban Day School at Attachment 1 (IT People Unlimited, Inc. Contract). 26 See Request for Review of Urban Day School at Attachment 1 (IT People Unlimited, Inc. Contract). 27 Adams County, 22 FCC Rcd at 6023-24, para. 10. 28 We also grant Barberton’s appeal with respect to being denied funding because its contract expiration date changed from the previous year’s FCC Form 471. See supra n.2. Barberton notes that USAC was under the (continued…) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 5 involve a misuse of funds. The Commission recently found in the Bishop Perry Order that, under certain circumstances, rigid adherence to certain E-rate rules and requirements that are “procedural” in nature does not promote the goals of section 254 of the Act – ensuring access to discounted telecommunications and information services to schools and libraries – and, therefore, does not serve the public interest.29 8. We also find that good cause exists to grant a waiver for Middle Georgia Wilderness Institute, which was denied funding on a month-to-month basis after the contract with its service provider expired several months before the end of the E-rate funding year.30 Middle Georgia Wilderness Institute entered into a multi-year contract in 2005 that expired on February 3, 2008.31 The school continued to receive services on a month-to-month basis from the same service provider after the contract ended, but was denied funding by USAC.32 Consistent with the Adams County Order, we waive USAC’s requirement that the contract expiration date coincide with the end of the funding year.33 9. As the Commission found in the Adams County Order, these mistakes do not warrant the complete rejection of these Petitioners’ applications for E-rate funding.34 Although the record demonstrates that Petitioners’ contracts had minor errors or were not signed and dated by both parties before the Petitioners filed their FCC Forms 471, they all had some form of an agreement in place during the relevant funding year prior to the filing of their applications.35 Importantly, these appeals do not ________________________ (….continued from previous page) mistaken impression that Barberton had a multi-year contract when, in fact, Barberton entered into two separate one- year contracts that each had differing expiration dates. Request for Review by Barberton City School District at 3. Upon review of the record, we find that Barberton had two separate contracts that complied with E-rate program rules for two separate funding years. Therefore, since Barberton did not have a multi-year contract, we find it is acceptable that Barberton’s FCC Forms 471 had different expiration dates for Funding Years 2003 and 2004. 29 See Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Bishop Perry Middle School, et al., Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD-487170, et al., CC Docket No. 02- 6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5316, 5316-17, 5319-20, paras. 2, 9 (2006) (Bishop Perry Order). Moreover, as noted in the Bishop Perry Order, many applicants contend that the application process is complicated and time-consuming, and the Commission has started a proceeding to address, among other things, modifying the application and competitive bidding process for the schools and libraries support mechanism. See Comprehensive Review of Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, Lifeline and Linkup, Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., WC Docket Nos. 05-195, 02-60, 03-109, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 02-6, 97-21, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11308, 11325, para. 40 (2005) (Comprehensive Review NPRM); Bishop Perry Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5319-20, para. 9. 30 Request for Review of Middle Georgia Wilderness Institute at 1-2. 31 Id. at 1. 32 Id. 33 Adams County Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6022, para. 8. 34 Id. at 6023-24, para. 10. 35 We also grant Barberton’s appeal with respect to being denied funding because its contract expiration date changed from the previous year’s FCC Form 471. See supra n.2. Barberton notes that USAC was under the mistaken impression that Barberton had a multi-year contract when, in fact, Barberton entered into two separate one- year contracts that each had differing expiration dates. Request for Review by Barberton City School District at 3. Upon review of the record, we find that Barberton had two separate contracts that complied with E-rate program (continued…) Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 6 involve a misuse of funds. The Commission recently found in the Bishop Perry Order that, under certain circumstances, rigid adherence to certain E-rate rules and requirements that are “procedural” in nature does not promote the goals of section 254 of the Act – ensuring access to discounted telecommunications and information services to schools and libraries – and, therefore, does not serve the public interest.36 We find that, for these applicants, denying or rescinding their requests for funding would create undue hardship and prevent these otherwise eligible schools and libraries from receiving E-rate funding. Finally, granting these appeals should have minimal effect on the Universal Service Fund (USF or the Fund).37 Accordingly, we find that good cause exists to grant Petitioners a limited waiver of our rules, and remand these matters to USAC for further processing consistent with our decision.38 ________________________ (….continued from previous page) rules for two separate funding years. Therefore, since Barberton did not have a multi-year contract, we find it is acceptable that Barberton’s FCC Forms 471 had different expiration dates for Funding Years 2003 and 2004. 36 See Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Bishop Perry Middle School, et al., Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD-487170, et al., CC Docket No. 02- 6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5316, 5316-17, 5319-20, paras. 2, 9 (2006) (Bishop Perry Order). Moreover, as noted in the Bishop Perry Order, many applicants contend that the application process is complicated and time-consuming, and the Commission has started a proceeding to address, among other things, modifying the application and competitive bidding process for the schools and libraries support mechanism. See Comprehensive Review of Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, Lifeline and Linkup, Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., WC Docket Nos. 05-195, 02-60, 03-109, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 02-6, 97-21, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11308, 11325, para. 40 (2005) (Comprehensive Review NPRM); Bishop Perry Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5319-20, para. 9. 37 We estimate that the appeals granted in this order involve applications for approximately $3.35 million in funding for Funding Years 2004-2007. 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 Fourth Quarter 2008 (Aug. 1, 2008). Thus, we determine that the action we take today should have minimal impact on the Universal Service Fund as a whole. 38 In the case of one Petitioner, Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library (Clarksburg-Harrison), we also find good cause to waive section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules that establishes deadlines for affected parties to seek review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. Clarksburg-Harrison indicates that it was given different advice by the Commission and USAC regarding the proper procedure for filing its appeal and, by the time it determined the proper course of action, its appeal was late. Request for Review by Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library at 1. Specifically, Clarksburg-Harrison said it contacted USAC by phone and was told o file its appeal with the Commission. Id. The Commission subsequently told Clarksburg-Harrison to file with USAC “to obtain a case number.” Id. When the library eventually filed its appeal with USAC, it was 16 days late. Id. We find that the conflicting advice given to Clarksburg-Harrison hampered its ability to file in a timely manner. Had USAC or the Commission originally accepted Clarksburg-Harrison’s appeal, it would have been timely filed. Furthermore, Clarksburg-Harrison was only a few days late in filing its appeal and has demonstrated that it was making a good- faith effort to comply with the E-rate program’s procedures. Therefore, consistent with precedent, we find good cause to waive the filing deadline from section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules in this instance. See, e.g., Request for Review by Benavides Independent School District, File No. SLD-348268, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 12910 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2006) (granting a waiver request when applicant did not receive notice of the requirements for filing an appeal in accordance with Commission rules). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 7 10. Appeals Granted on the Merits. We also grant 11 appeals because we find that the applicants were either in compliance with the Commission’s rules or USAC’s guidance on contracts.39 Consistent with precedent, we grant one request for review of a decision in which USAC denied funding solely because the execution date of the contract did not accompany the signature lines of both the applicant and the service provider.40 Consistent with USAC’s current guidance to applicants, we grant four appeals where the Petitioners had contracts signed by the applicant but not the service provider prior to the submission of their FCC Forms 471, or the Petitioner listed the effective date as the date the contract was signed.41 Finally, consistent with our obligation to conduct a de novo review of appeals of decisions made by USAC,42 we grant seven appeals on the merits because the Petitioners submitted evidence to the Commission demonstrating that each Petitioner had a valid, signed contract in place at the time it submitted its FCC Forms 471 to USAC.43 11. We emphasize the limited nature of this decision. The Commission’s competitive bidding rules serve as a central tenet of the E-rate program. They ensure more efficient pricing for 39 See supra para. 2; 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c); USAC website, Contract Guidance, http://www.usac.org/sl/applicants/step04/contract-guidance.aspx (retrieved Aug. 11, 2008). 40 See Request for Review of Merkaz Bnos High School (USAC denied funding because the effective date of the contract was separate from the signature lines); see Adams County Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6024, para. 11; Request for Review of a Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Gayville-Volin School District 63-1, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File No. SLD-471545, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 9274 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2006) (granting the request for review where USAC denied funding solely because the agreement between Gayville-Volin and its service provider was not dated by both parties); Request for Review of Richmond County School District, Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD- 451211, 452514, 464649, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 6570 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2006) (granting Richmond’s appeal where USAC denied funding solely because the execution date of the contract did not accompany the signature lines of both the applicant and the service provider). 41 See Request for Review of Jerome Joint School District (demonstrating that it had valid contracts even though one contract did not contain the signature of the service provider and the second contract had the effective date of the contract instead of the date the parties signed); Request for Review of Ottawa Elementary School (noting that the school timely signed the three contracts in question but its service providers did not sign the contracts until a few days after the FCC Form 471 was submitted); Request for Review of Sophia Academy (noting that it provided USAC with a contract that was unsigned by its service provider but providing the correct, signed contract on appeal with the Commission); Request for Review of Townshend Elementary School (noting that the service provider had not signed and dated the contract when the FCC Form 471 was submitted but later provided USAC with a contract that was signed and dated by both parties). 42 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. 43 See Request for Review of Cascade Union Elementary School District (noting that, although the wrong documentation was provided for Program Integrity Assurance (PIA) review, a valid contract was in place when the FCC Form 471 was submitted); Request for Review of Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library (providing the valid contract on appeal that was dated before submission of FCC Form 471); Request for Review and/or Waiver of Cleburne Independent School District (noting that it had a “ratified” contract, which is considered a valid contract under its state’s procurement laws, before signing the actual contract); Request for Review of Durham Public School District (following North Carolina procurement law that requires only an agreement in writing, not a formal contract); Request for Review of Mosdos Chasidei Square (demonstrating that it had a valid contract when its FCC Form 471 was filed by noting the date at the top of the contract despite a conflicting date next to the signature that was written in several months later); Request for Review of St. Fidelis School (noting that it provided USAC with an unsigned, electronic copy of the contract but providing the correct, signed contract on appeal with the Commission). Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 8 telecommunications and information services purchased by schools and libraries and help deter waste, fraud and abuse.44 Although we grant the subject appeals before us, our action here does not eliminate the rule that applicants have a signed contract in place when submitting an FCC Form 471. In addition, we continue to require E-rate applicants to submit complete and accurate contract information to USAC in a timely fashion as part of the application review process. 12. 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 Requests for Review or Waiver addressed here, this action in no way affects the authority of the Commission or USAC to conduct audits and 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 the Commission’s rules, such proceedings can reveal instances in which universal service funds were disbursed improperly 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 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 the Commission’s procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 13. 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 pursuant to authority delegated in 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), the Requests for Review and Requests for Waiver filed by the Petitioners as listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order. 14. 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, 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), section 54.504(c) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c), IS WAIVED to the limited extent described herein. 15. 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, 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), section 54.504(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(a), IS WAIVED to the limited extent described herein. 16. 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, 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), section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.720, IS WAIVED to the limited extent described herein. 44 See Adams County Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6022, para. 8. Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 9 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 the authority delegated in 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), USAC SHALL COMPLETE its review of the underlying applications as listed in the Appendix and ISSUE an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 days from release of this order. 18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Jennifer K. McKee Acting Chief Telecommunications Access Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 10 APPENDIX Applicant Application Number Funding Year Date Appeal Filed With FCC Barberton City School District Barberton, OH 400938 2004 March 7, 2005 Cascade Union Elementary School District Redding, CA 535567 2006 Feb. 12, 2007 Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library Clarksburg, WV 456281 2005 Feb. 9, 2006 Cleburne Independent School District Cleburne, TX 449621 2005 May 5, 2006 Coffee County School District Douglas, GA 31533 526781, 531378 2006 May 7, 2007 Durham Public School District Durham, NC 533758 2006 Jan. 29, 2007 Jerome Joint School District #261 Jerome, ID 493107 2006 Feb. 2, 2007 Kings River Elementary School District Kingsburg, CA 578414 2007 Feb. 6, 2008 Manatee County School District Bradenton, FL 508569 2006 May 3, 2007 Merkaz Bnos High School Brooklyn, NY 520594 2006 March 15, 2007 Middle Georgia Wilderness Institute Cochran, GA 573749 2007 Apr. 7, 2008 Midwest City-Del City Independent School District Midwest City, OK 559836 2007 Apr. 9, 2008 Mosdos Chasidei Square Brooklyn, NY 535040 2006 Jan. 10, 2007 Ottawa Elementary School Ottawa, IL 506423 2006 Dec. 20, 2006 Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2382 11 Applicant Application Number Funding Year Date Appeal Filed With FCC Sophia Academy Providence, RI 502804 2006 Jan. 23, 2007 St. Fidelis School College Point, NY 518553 2006 Dec. 26, 2006 Townshend Elementary School Townshend, VT 494678 2006 March 9, 2007 Urban Day School Milwaukee, WI 585262, 585437, 585769 2007 Jan. 29, 2008