Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC  20554
In the Matter of )
)
Requests for Review of )
Decisions of the )
Universal Service Administrator by )
)
Agra Public Schools I-134                     ) File No. SLD-363747, et al.
Agra, Oklahoma, et al. )
)
Schools and Libraries Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 02-6
Support Mechanism )
ORDER
Adopted:  May 26, 2010 Released:  May 26, 2010
By the Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this order, we resolve 104 appeals of decisions made by the Universal Service 
Administrative Company (USAC) concerning the schools and libraries universal service support 
mechanism, also known as the E-rate program.1 As explained below, we deny the 104 appeals on the 
grounds that the petitioners failed to submit their appeals either to the Commission or to USAC within 60 
days as required by the Commission’s rules, and the petitioners have failed to show special circumstances 
necessary for the Commission to waive the deadline.2 In addition, we deny the waiver requests because 
filing deadlines for appeals are needed to provide finality in the decision-making process, the decision is 
consistent with Commission precedent, and applicants are provided with specific information regarding 
the appeal deadline when their requests are reduced or denied by USAC.  
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.3 The Commission’s rules provide that any person aggrieved by an action taken 
  
1 In this order, the term “appeals” refers generally to both requests for review of decisions issued by USAC and 
requests for waiver of the Commission’s rules.  Section 54.719(c) of the Commission’s rules provides that any 
person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of USAC may seek review from the Commission.  47 C.F.R. § 
54.719(c).  Additionally, the Commission may waive any provision of its rules for good cause shown.  47 C.F.R. § 
1.3.  A list of the appeals is attached as Appendices A, B, and C.  Specifically, appeals filed late with USAC are 
listed in Appendix A.  Appeals filed late with the Commission are listed in Appendix B.  Appeals filed late with 
both USAC and the Commission are listed in Appendix C.  
2 See Appendices A-C.
3 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.501-54.503.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
2
by a division of USAC may seek review from the relevant committee governing that division or directly 
from the Commission.4 Section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules establishes deadlines for affected 
parties to seek review of decisions issued by USAC.5 For those requests seeking review of decisions 
issued on or after August 13, 2001, the appeal must have been filed with the Commission or USAC 
within 60 days of the issuance of the decision that the party seeks to have reviewed.6 The time period for 
filing an appeal commences on the issuance date of the decision.7 The Commission’s rules treat appeals 
filed with USAC or with the Commission as having been filed on the date the appeal is postmarked.8  
III. DISCUSSION
3. In this order, we deny 104 appeals on the grounds that the petitioners failed to timely 
submit their appeals to either the Commission or USAC.  As indicated above, a party seeking appeal of an 
adverse USAC decision must file an appeal with USAC or the Commission within 60 days after the 
issuance of that decision.9 USAC denied the appeals listed in Appendix A on the grounds that the appeals 
were untimely filed with USAC.10 Additionally, the petitioners listed in Appendix B failed to timely file 
their appeals with the Commission.11 Finally, the petitioners listed in Appendix C filed untimely appeals 
with both USAC and the Commission.12
4. In support of their appeals, petitioners assert that they failed to timely file their appeals 
due to various reasons,13 such as employee inattention.14 Other petitioners attribute their late filings to a 
  
4 47 C.F.R. § 54.719.
5 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.720.
6 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(a), (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, 17 FCC Rcd 339, 340, para. 3 (Com. 
Car. Bur. 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) (modifying the 30-day deadline for filing an appeal of a decision made by USAC, and stating that 
the new 60-day deadline would apply to all such pleadings that were required to be filed on or after September 12, 
2001 and were received by the Commission on or after September 12, 2001).  
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.720.
8 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(e); see Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, 
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202, 9222, para. 57 (2003) 
(Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order).  
9 47 C.F.R. § 54.720(a), (b).
10 See Appendix A.  Those petitioners then appealed USAC’s denial to the Commission.
11 See Appendix B.
12 See Appendix C.
13 See Request for Review by American Internet Group, LLC (Academy of Dayton) (explaining that, 
notwithstanding receipt of a service provider funding commitment decision letter, the service provider filing the 
appeal did not receive notice of the funding denial in a timely manner from the school); Request for Waiver by 
Consorcio Colegios Católicos Arquidiócesis de San Juan (noting that a new employee, holidays, and work on other 
pressing E-rate matters were obstacles in filing a timely appeal); Request for Waiver by Dorchester School District 
Four (noting that appeal was filed late because of work on other E-rate matters and because employee was gone for 
part of December); Request for Review by Floyd County Board of Education (stating generally that it had appealed 
to USAC, but that the appeal was never adjudicated); Request for Review from Hamilton-Fulton-Montgomery 
BOCES (noting that it was awaiting evidence from its service provider to challenge the decrease in funding on the 
FCC Form 472 Notification Letter it received); Request for Waiver by Johnstown-Monroe Local School District 
(maintaining that it did not receive the out-of-window letter until it called USAC to check on its application status,
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
3
lack of awareness of the Commission’s rules15 or lack of knowledge of any defect in their original funding 
application.16 Other petitioners argue that they did not file appeals earlier because, at the time, they did 
    
though the record contains no evidence that this was the case); Request for Waiver by Lotus Academy (noting that 
school was relocating and decision letter was not forwarded to school’s consultant); Request for Waiver by 
Minnesota Department of Education (NW-LINKS) (noting delays in its receipt of a relevant audit report and 
difficulties in communicating with USAC personnel); Request for Review by Moise Memorial Library (noting that 
appeal was late because its service provider could not supply documentation in a timely fashion due to staff 
turnover); Request for Waiver by Portsmouth Public Library (stating that it did not fully read the funding 
commitment decision letter to see changes made by USAC that the applicant now wants to appeal); Request for 
Review by Relcomm, Inc. (Atlantic City Board of Education) (requesting to reopen a previously withdrawn appeal 
due to the commencement of an internal review by the school board); Request for Waiver by School District Unit 46 
(stating that it could not file until it resolved a billing dispute with its service provider); Request for Review by 
Seattle School District 1 (maintaining that it could not file its appeal because supporting information was not 
previously available). 
14 See Request for Waiver by Bancroft Neurohealth (stating that the appeal was untimely filed due to consultant 
resignation and staff turnover); Request for Review and/or Waiver by Brazos Independent School District (noting 
that its former E-rate consultant failed to answer USAC’s questions and resigned without notice, and that the new 
consultant discovered in January 2009 that its request had not been funded); Request for Waiver by Casa Blanca 
Community School (noting that there was a high rate of turnover in E-rate coordinators and that it was unknown if 
the school had previously appealed or responded to USAC’s inquiries); Request for Review and/or Waiver by Chico 
Unified School District (noting that employee inadvertently allowed more than 60 days to elapse); Request for 
Review by City Day Community School (stating that the appeal date was overlooked due to the shifting of 
administrative responsibilities and a change in cellular service providers); Request for Waiver by Estancia 
Municipal School District (stating that it appealed late due to staff turnover); Request for Review by Mesivta M’Kor 
Chaim School (noting that appeal was overlooked due to an office reorganization); Request for Review by Presidio 
Networked Solutions, Inc. (Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD) (noting that the individual that managed the provider’s E-
rate program had departed the company); Request for Waiver by Santa Clara Day School (stating that it erroneously 
believed the prior E-rate coordinator had filed an appeal); Request for Review by Santa Maria Independent School 
District (stating that district underwent personnel changes and USAC’s decision was sent to a person who was no 
longer employed by the district); Request for Waiver by Scholars Academy (noting that an appeal could not be 
timely filed due to staff turnover and consultant resignation); Request for Review by Septima Clark Public Charter 
School (stating that the school’s E-rate coordinator left the school and USAC’s decision was not passed on to the 
new contact person); Request for Review by St. Christopher-Ottillie Schools (noting that former consultant did not 
give school an opportunity to appeal); Request for Waiver by St. Rose of Lima School (noting that the former 
principal did not make efforts to comply with E-rate requirements); Request for Review by St. Simon Stock School 
(noting that a change in administration led to the late filing of its appeal); Request for Waiver by Western Reserve 
Board of Education (noting that the appeal was not timely filed due to staff turnover); Request for Review by 
Yonkers Public Schools (stating that its appeal date passed without the school being aware because it was involved 
in other filings).
15 See Request for Review by Blessed Sacrament Elementary School (stating that it was unaware of the appeals time 
period for filing); Request for Review and/or Waiver by Conroe Independent School District (noting that it did not 
know it could appeal a COMAD letter until the deadline for doing so had passed); Request for Review by Lena 
Winslow School District (noting the person handling E-rate issues had no experience with the program and did not 
know the school district could appeal); Request for Waiver by Laverne Delphian Public Library (stating that it was 
the coordinator’s first year applying for E-rate funding, and that she was not aware of the 60-day appeals deadline); 
Request for Waiver by Lucerne Valley Unified School District (noting that the staff person handling E-rate matters 
was not familiar with the program and its rules); Request for Waiver by Otis School District (noting that the new E-
rate coordinator was unaware of the option of filing an appeal at the Commission until attending training); Request 
for Review and/or Waiver by Rochester School District (stating that it was confused about the appeals deadline); 
Request for Review by Bay Area Catholic Schools (St. John School) (asserting that it did not understand the process 
of appealing a denial).
16  See Request for Review by Bloom High School District 206 (noting that it did not realize until the invoice period 
that an appeal was needed); Request for Review by Duval County Public Schools (stating that it did not realize there 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
4
not have grounds for appeal.17 These petitioners then filed untimely appeals after the release of 
Commission decisions containing precedent that, in their view, could affect previously denied 
applications.  Several petitioners fail to provide an explanation for the untimely filing of their appeals.18
    
was a problem with its service start date until the invoicing stage); Request for Waiver by Glendale Elementary 
School District #40 (noting that it discovered the funding decision error after the filing deadline); Request for
Review by Greene County Schools (maintaining it was unaware an appeal needed to be filed until told by its service 
provider); Request for Review by The House of Good Shepherd (noting that it learned of the problem from its 
service provider after the appeal filing deadline); Request for Waiver by James V. Brown Library (asserting that it 
did not recognize the problem in its application until the appeal filing deadline had passed); Request for Review by 
Kane County School District (noting that it discovered its error when preparing E-rate application for the next year); 
Request for Review by Moore County School District (stating that the district’s E-rate coordinator was new and 
learned of the mistake when reviewing paperwork); Request for Review by SER-Niños Charter School (noting that 
it was not aware of errors in its application until informed by the Texas Education Agency); Request for Waiver by 
Somerset Independent School District (noting that it did not realize mistake until the invoicing process); Request for 
Waiver by DRS Technologies (Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Library Association) (stating that it was not 
aware of any mistake until after the appeals period ended).
17 The following late-filed appeals seek review based on Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service 
Administrator by Bishop Perry Middle School, et al., Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, File 
Nos. SLD-487170, et al., CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5316 (2006) (Bishop Perry Order): Request for 
Review and/or Waiver by Coatesville Area School District;  Request for Waiver by Conneaut Area City Schools; 
Request for Waiver by Danville CC School District 118; Request for Waiver by East Allegheny School District; 
Request for Review by Eminence R-1 School District; Request for Waiver by Lakewood Cheder School; Request 
for Waiver by Maryetta School; Request for Review by Monessen Public Library and District Center; Request for
Waiver by North Salem Central School District; Request for Review by Schenectady City School District; Request 
for Review of Weld County School District RE-1; see also Request for Review by Alief Independent School District 
(stating that they learned of a change in the eligibility of web hosting services, but they had expected USAC to 
contact them); Request for Review by Arkansas School for the Blind (noting that new Commission precedent on 
signed contracts had been released); Request for Review by Bethlehem Central School District (stating that its 
appeal should be considered because the Commission recently waived procedural rules regarding clerical or 
ministerial errors in FCC Forms 486); Request for Review by Garden City Unified School District 457 (conceding 
that its appeal was untimely filed but stating that it would like its appeal to be considered because of a program 
change regarding dark fiber); Request for Waiver by Propel Charter Schools (noting that its appeal should be 
considered due to recent precedent and the fact the Commission has allowed waivers of the 60-day appeal deadline 
in the past).
18 See Request for Waiver by Agra Public Schools I-134; Request for Review by Bethany Public Schools; Request 
for Review by Bethlehem Area School District; Request for Review by Billings Public School; Request for Waiver 
by Cheder Bnei Torah; Request for Waiver by Coloma Community School District; Request for Review by 
Congregation Yeshiva Beis Chaya Mushka Inc; Request for Waiver by Contra Costa County Community Services 
Department; Request for Waiver by Coolidge Public Library; Requests for Review by Douglas County School 
District #4; Request for Review by East Montpelier Elementary School; Request for Review by FTI Services, Inc.; 
Request for Review by Govplace (Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District); Request for Review by Green 
Tree School; Request for Review and/or Waiver by Harvest Preparatory Academy; Request for Review by Hollister 
Elementary School District; Request for Review by Holy Ghost Catholic School; Request for Review by Las Vegas 
City Schools; Request for Review by Lincoln Public Library; Request for Review by Long Branch School District; 
Request for Review by Mathematics, Civics and Sciences Charter School; Request for Review by Minnesota State 
Academies; Request for Review by Monroe Career & Technical Institute; Request for Review by Perspectives 
Charter School; Request for Review by Professional Education Resources, Inc. (Yarbrough School District); 
Request for Waiver by Round Lake Area Schools Community Unit #116; Request for Waiver by Salisbury-Elk Lick 
School District; Request for Review by Sausalito Marin City School District; Request for Review by St. John 
Catholic School; Request for Review by St. Mark’s High School; Request for Review by St. Michael School; 
Request for Review by St. Theresa School; Request for Review and/or Waiver by Traverse Area District Library; 
Request for Waiver by West Bonner County School District #83; Request for Review by Westchester Day School; 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
5
5. As an initial matter, we treat all the appeals addressed in this order as requests for waiver 
of the applicable filing deadline.19  The Commission may waive any provision of its rules on its own 
motion and for good cause shown.20 A rule may be waived where the particular facts make strict 
compliance inconsistent with the public interest.21 In addition, the Commission may take into account 
considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual 
basis.22 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.23  
6. Consistent with precedent, we find that the petitioners have not demonstrated the 
existence of special circumstances that would warrant a waiver of our rules and we deny the appeals listed 
in Appendices A, B, and C. 24 Filing deadlines for appeals are needed to provide finality in the decision-
making process.  Because the E-rate program has a cap of $2.25 billion each year, USAC and the 
Commission must accurately determine the number of funding requests that will be able to be granted in 
any given year.  While USAC maintains a reserve fund for appeals, the amount of money reserved in that 
fund is generally based on the appeals that can be filed within the 60-day deadline.  If the Commission 
allowed applicants to appeal decisions significantly after the deadline, it would be difficult to estimate the 
amount of money that should be held in the reserve fund.  The reserve fund could be increased; however, 
that funding would have to come from the same $2.25 billion allocated for the program and would 
therefore effectively take money away from applicants that had followed the rules or timely filed appeals.   
7. Moreover, our decision is consistent with precedent.  In general, the Commission has 
enforced its appeal filing deadlines for the E-rate program, allowing waivers of deadlines only in limited, 
compelling situations.25 For example, in the Mescalero Order, the Commission denied an application for 
review where the applicant asserted that its appeal was untimely filed because of disruption caused by the 
    
Request for Waiver by West Mifflin Area School District; Request for Review by World Wide Technology, Inc.; 
Request for Waiver by Yeshivas Darchei Torah; Request for Review by Yeshiva Yagdil Torah.
19 Although many petitioners have titled their petitions as “Requests for Review,” where we find that the petitioners 
have not satisfied the standard for justifying a waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 54.720, we will not address the merits of such 
appeals in this order.
20 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.
21 Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular).
22 WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), aff’d, 459 F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
23 Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.  Accord, Network IP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
24 See Appendices A, B and C.
25 See, e.g., Application for Review of a Decision of the Wireline Competition Bureau by Mescalero Apache School, 
Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, File No. SLD-317139, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 20 FCC
Rcd 5848 (2005) (Mescalero Order) (upholding a Bureau-level decision denying a request for review as untimely 
filed); Request for Review by Donna Public Library, Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, File Nos. 
SLD-289464, 319218, 320003, 324301, 324627, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6358 (Wireline Comp. 
Bur. 2004) (Donna Public Library Order) (Bureau-level decision declining to waive the 47 C.F.R. § 54.720 filing 
deadline and denying a request for review as untimely filed); Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal 
Service Administrator by Albuquerque Public Schools, Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, File 
Nos. SLD-242088, 24611, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 3985 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2004) (same); but 
see Request for Waiver by Greenfield Public School District, Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, 
File Nos. SLD-431911, SLD-431129, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 2122 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2006) 
(granting a waiver request where the district’s technology coordinator was unexpectedly called to active military 
duty in a time of war). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
6
transfer of the school to a new location and a non-responsive vendor.26 The Commission upheld the 
Bureau decision denying the applicant’s request for review as untimely filed, stating that, in cases of 
missed deadlines, the Bureau rarely grants waivers for untimely filing of appeals to USAC.27 The 
Commission also noted that the Bureau has “consistently held that applicants are responsible for 
submitting their appeals in a timely manner and complying with program rules and procedures,” and that 
“financial need does not meet the requirement of special circumstances that warrant a waiver of the 
Commission’s rules.”28 Further, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
has “discourage[d] the Commission from entertaining late-filed pleadings ‘in the absence of extremely 
unusual circumstances.’”29
8. We also believe that the situations presented here may be distinguished from those 
addressed by the Commission in the Bishop Perry Order.30 In the Bishop Perry Order, while granting 
appeals of USAC decisions in which the applicants were denied funding due to clerical or ministerial 
errors in the application process, the Commission noted that “many E-rate program beneficiaries, 
particularly small entities, contend that the application process is complicated.”31 Unlike the application 
process, however, the procedures for filing an appeal are straightforward.  Each applicant is advised of the 
deadline and the procedure for filing an appeal when it receives a denial of or reduction of its funding 
commitment.32 Moreover, in the Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, the Commission took 
steps to ensure the manageability of the appeals process for applicants.  Specifically, the Commission 
permanently extended to 60 days the time for filing an appeal with USAC or the Commission, noting that, 
because many E-rate applicants “have no experience with regulatory filing processes, . . . . the 30-day 
time period is often not adequate to allow potential petitioners to gather the documents and synthesize the 
  
26 Mescalero Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5850, para 5. 
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that the Commission does not abuse its 
discretion when it “decline[s] to entertain a late-filed petition in the absence of extenuating circumstances 
prohibiting a timely filing” (quoting 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192, 199-200 (D.C. Cir. 
2003))).
30 Bishop Perry Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5316, para. 2.
31 Id.
32 See, e.g., Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Judith Santiago, St. Rose of Lima School (dated 
Oct. 1, 2008) (Form 486 Notification Letter) (noting that an applicant may file an appeal with USAC, stating what 
information the appeal should contain, listing USAC’s address and stating that “[i]f you wish to appeal the Service 
Start Date change(s) and/or funding commitment adjustment(s) indicated in this letter, your appeal must be received 
by USAC or postmarked within 60 days of the above date on this letter”); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries 
Division, to Chaim Garfinkel, Yeshiva Yagdil Torah (dated Sept. 16, 2008) (Funding Commitment Decision Letter) 
(noting that an applicant may file an appeal with USAC or the Commission, giving instructions on where to send 
appeal information, providing instructions on what information the appeal should contain, and noting that “your 
appeal must be received by USAC [or the FCC] or postmarked within 60 days of the date of this letter.  Failure to 
meet this requirement will result in automatic dismissal of your appeal.”); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries 
Division, to Bruce Hills, Coolidge Library (dated May 11, 2006) (Funding Year 2006 Form 471 Postmarked Outside 
of Window) (noting that an applicant may file an appeal with USAC, giving instructions on what information the 
appeal should contain, listing USAC’s address, and noting that the appeal must be “postmarked within 60 days of 
the above date on this letter”); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Carol Underriner, Rochester 
School District (dated Mar. 6, 2006) (Administrator’s Decision on Appeal) (noting that applicant may file an appeal 
with the Commission, giving instructions on where to find appeal information, and noting that the appeal must be 
“POSTMARKED within 60 days of the above date on this letter” (emphasis in original)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
7
arguments needed to file pleadings in order to challenge funding decisions.”33 The Commission also 
amended its rules to provide that appeals to USAC or the Commission will be treated as having been 
received on the date they are postmarked, rather than the date they are filed.34 Thus, in light of the 
uncomplicated nature of the E-rate appeals procedure and the steps the Commission has already taken to 
enable applicants to file timely appeals, we restate our past finding that applicants are responsible for 
ensuring that their appeals are submitted in a timely manner and that they comply with program rules and 
procedures.35
9. Therefore, we find that the petitioners failed to comply with the filing deadline set forth 
in section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules, and that the petitioners have not demonstrated that waivers 
of the filing deadline are warranted in these cases.  As a result, we deny the petitioners’ appeals as listed 
in Appendices A, B, and C.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
10. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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), that the appeals filed by petitioners as listed in Appendices A, B, and C 
ARE DENIED.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules, 
47 C.F.R. §1.102(b)(1), that this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Carol E. Mattey
Deputy Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
  
33 Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9221, para. 56.
34 Id. at 9222, para. 57 (“Commenters note that this change would be consistent with other program filing 
deadlines.”).  Prior to the Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, appeals filed with USAC or the 
Commission were treated as having been filed on the date actually received.  See id.  
35 See, e.g., Donna Public Library Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 6359, para. 3. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
8
APPENDIX A
Appeals Filed Untimely With USAC
Petitioner Application 
Number
Funding 
Request 
Number 
(FRN)
Type of 
Appeal
Funding 
Year
Appeal Filed with 
the Commission
Billings Public School
Billings, Oklahoma
466603 1283316 Review 2005 November 9, 2006
Blessed Sacrament 
Elementary School
Elizabeth, New Jersey
515433 1430611
1430615
1430616
1454757
1454769
Review 2006 March 5, 2007
Bloom High School 
District 206
Chicago Heights, Illinois
575765
578349 
583350
1591914
1593860
1593884
1594019
1599719
1600216
1616798
Review 2007 December 10, 
2008
City Day Community 
School
Dayton, Ohio
593603 1635976 Review 2008 September 2, 2009
Contra Costa County 
Community Services 
Department
Martinez, California
635692 1759525
1759690
1759963
1760020
Waiver 2008 September 14, 
2009
Douglas County School 
District #4
Roseburg, Oregon
493870 
493852
1362065
1379097
Review 2006 March 2, 2007
Duval County Public 
Schools
Jacksonville, Florida
521826 1482670 Review 2006 August 5, 2008
East Montpelier 
Elementary School
Barre, Vermont
535138 1480648
1480839
1481036
Review 2006 April 30, 2007
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
9
Garden City Unified 
School District 457  
Garden City, Kansas
420437 1158659 Review 2004 April 4, 2005
Greene County Schools
Snow Hill, North Carolina
381160 1048853 Review 2003 August 17, 2005
Hamilton-Fulton-
Montgomery BOCES
Johnstown, New York
397144 1085536
1049263
Review 2004 January 29, 2007
The House of Good 
Shepherd School
Utica, New York
355090 956981 Review 2003 October 31, 2005
Kane County School 
District
Kanab, Utah
462458 1271213 Review 2005 November 30, 
2006
Las Vegas City Schools
Las Vegas, New Mexico
405536 1160653
1160695
1160754
1160783
1160814
Review 2004 November 5, 2007
Laverne Delphian Public 
Library
Laverne, Oklahoma
462676 1271362
1271379
Waiver 2005 September 19, 
2005
Lena Winslow School 
District
Camanche, Iowa
499984 1383697
1383712
1383727
1383734
1383738
1383742
1383745
1383749
Review 2006 October 1, 2007
Lotus Academy
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
538106 1490237 Waiver 2006 March 12, 2007
Mesivta M’kor Chaim 
School
Brooklyn, New York
536822 1485784
1485833
1485877
1485908
Review 2006 May 9, 2007
Moise Memorial Library
Santa Rosa, New Mexico
534865 1486046
1486084
Review 2006 September 14, 
2007
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
10
Monroe Career & 
Technical Institute
Bartonsville, Pennsylvania
537370 
537133
1487710
1487095
Review 2006 May 1, 2007
Moore County School 
District
Lynchburg, Tennessee
684395 1871415 Review 2009 November 12, 
2009
Santa Maria Independent 
School District
Santa Maria, Texas
480701 1329603 Review 2005 August 23, 2006
Sausalito Marin City 
School District
Sausalito, California
630621 1741125 Review 2008 March 25, 
2009
Schenectady City School 
District
Schenectady, New York
461681 1275491 Review 2005 June 11, 2007
Seattle School District 1
Seattle, Washington
496159 1424224 Review 2006 September 23, 
2008
SER-Niños Charter School
Houston, Texas
536918 1485974 Review 2006 February 1, 2007
Somerset Independent 
School District
Somerset, Texas
233277 545303 
545208 
545349
Waiver 2001 December 5, 2006
St. John Catholic School
St. Pete Beach, Florida
585161 1624020
1624095
Review 2007 November 14, 
2007
St. Michael School
Remus, Michigan
403802 1107149 Review 2004 October 27, 2005
St. Simon Stock School
Bronx, New York
535873 1482377
1482425
1482461
1482514
1482598
Review 2006 March 28, 2007
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
11
West Bonner County 
School District #83
Priest River, Idaho
539266 1493549
1493550
1493551
1493552
1493553
1493554
1493555
1493556
1493557
1493558
1493559
1493560
1493561
1493562
1493563
1493564
Waiver 2006 April 11, 2007
Westchester Day School
Mamaroneck, New York
528865 1459205 Review 2006 May 1, 2007
World Wide Technology, 
Inc. 
(Cedar Unified School 
District 25)
St. Louis, Missouri
374980 1043142 Review 2003 November 14, 
2005
Yonkers Public Schools
Yonkers, New York
369142 1010917 Review 2003 December 11, 
2006
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
12
APPENDIX B
Appeals Filed Untimely With the Commission
Petitioner Application 
Number
Funding 
Request 
Number
Type of 
Appeal
Funding 
Year
Appeal Filed with     
the Commission
Agra Public Schools 
I-134
Agra, Oklahoma
363747 986635
986646
Waiver 2003 April 26, 2006
Alief Independent 
School District
Houston, Texas
672733 1836651 Review 2009 October 14, 2009
American Internet 
Group, LLC 
(Academy of Dayton)
Detroit, Michigan
469896 1299731 
1299765
Review 2005 September 18, 2006
Arkansas School for 
the Blind
Little Rock, Arkansas
525196 1446698 Review 2006 November 21, 2006
Bancroft Neurohealth
Montgomery, 
Alabama
601487 1657721
1657735
Waiver 2008 May 1, 2009
Bay Area Catholic 
Schools (St. John 
School)
Essexville, Michigan
511956 1408634
1408759
Review 2006 July 1, 2008
Bethany Public 
Schools
Bethany, Oklahoma
497533 1370251 
1370305
Review 2006 October 15, 2007
Bethlehem Area 
School District
Bethlehem, 
Pennsylvania
531843 1468898 Review 2006 January 9, 2007
Bethlehem Central 
School District
Delmar, New York 
443073 1223789 Review 2005 April 2, 2007
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
13
Brazos Independent 
School District
Wallis, Texas
580467 1607435 Waiver 2007 March 3, 2009
Casa Blanca 
Community School
Bapchule, Arizona
295587 774187
774213
Waiver 2002 March 18, 2008
Cheder Bnei Torah
Lakewood, New 
Jersey
698363 1916341 
1916342
Waiver 2009 September 14, 2009
Chico Unified School 
District
Chico, California
499782 1375378 Review 
and/or 
Waiver
2006 May 29, 2007
Coatesville Area 
School District
Coatesville, 
Pennsylvania 
509428 1444270 Review 
and/or 
Waiver
2006 April 17, 2008
Coloma Community 
School District
Coloma, Michigan
411228 1128574
1128666
Waiver 2004 January 12, 2009
Congregation Yeshiva 
Beis Chaya Mushka 
Inc.
Brooklyn, New York
538813 1492585
1492586
1492587
Review 2006 November 9, 2007
Conroe Independent 
School District
Conroe, Texas
346687 934625 Review 
and/or 
Waiver
2003 September 25, 2009
Consorcio Colegios 
Católicos 
Arquidiócesis de San 
Juan
Guaynabo, Puerto 
Rico
533788 1478772 Waiver 2006 February 14, 2007
Coolidge Public 
Library
Solon, Maine
538959 1492930 Waiver 2006 October 10, 2006
Danville CC School 
District 118
Danville, Illinois
464298 1278253 Waiver 2005 July 13, 2006
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
14
Dorchester School 
District Four
Saint George, South 
Carolina
537303
535958
1487374
1484688
Waiver 2006 April 30, 2007
DRS Technologies 
(Southern California 
Tribal Chairman’s 
Library Association)
Polson, Montana
421982 1198657 Waiver 2004 June 1, 2007
East Allegheny 
School District
North Versailles, 
Pennsylvania
485105 1347044
1347137
1347167
1347219
1347399
Waiver 2005 August 27, 2007
Eminence R-1 School 
District
Eminence, Missouri
513691 1417954 Review 2006 May 23, 2007
Floyd County Board 
of Education
Rome, Georgia
182010 445882
445896
Review 2000 November 5, 2002
FTI Services, Inc.
(Superior School; 
Success Community 
Schools; Tulare 
County Juvenile 
Detention Facility; 
TCOE Court / 
Community Schools; 
Farmersville 
Community School; 
Lindsay Community 
School; Dinuba 
Community School)
Goleta, California
485193, 
482822, 
482794, 
485021, 
482660, 
484144, 
481614, 
482420, 
477941
1345180
1337350
1337185
1344723
1336748
1341687
1332804
1335848
1320067
Review 2005 January 13, 2009
Glendale Elementary 
School
District #40
Glendale, Arizona
536684 1485250 Waiver 2006 August 15, 2007
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
15
Green Tree School
Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania
516425 1421243
1421268
1421368
1421374
1421387
1421393
Review 2006 May 17, 2007
Harvest Preparatory 
Academy
Yuma, Arizona
422607 1165864 
1165914 
1165985 
1166018
1198973
Review 
and/or 
Waiver
2004 April 22, 2008
Hollister Elementary 
School District          
Hollister, California
421282 1161535
1161691
Review 2004 June 17, 2005
Holy Ghost Catholic 
School
Albuquerque, New 
Mexico
516819 1421766
1421767
1421768
Review 2006 February 28, 2007
James V. Brown 
Library
Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania
555508 1532749
1561534
Waiver 2007 December 18, 2008
Johnstown-Monroe 
Local School District
Johnstown, Ohio
642686 1776616 Waiver 2008 January 28, 2009
Lakewood Cheder 
School
Lakewood, New 
Jersey
628118 1762922 Waiver 2008 March 4, 2009
Lincoln Public 
Library
Lincoln, Rhode Island
697723 1915601
1915602
Review 2009 September 23, 2009
Long Branch School 
District
Long Branch, New 
Jersey
627407 1731126
1731101
Review 2008 May 4, 2009
Lucerne Valley 
Unified School 
District
Lucerne Valley, 
California
583749 1618734 
1618797
Waiver 2007 February 12, 2008
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
16
Maryetta Elementary 
School
Stilwell, Oklahoma
482137 1353344
1353345
1353346
1353347
1353349
1353350
1353351
Waiver 2005 September 6, 2006
Mathematics, Civics 
and Sciences Charter 
School
Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania
472488 1346553 Review 2005 November 6, 2006
Minnesota 
Department of 
Education (NW-
LINKS)
Moorhead, Minnesota
514857 1440646
1440705
1440815
1440928
Waiver 2006 February 6, 2007
Minnesota State 
Academies
Faribault, Minnesota
701723
702003
1921021
1922601
1922602
Review 2009 September 24, 2009
Monessen Public 
Library
Monessen, 
Pennsylvania
456244 1254900
1255235
1293184
Review 2005 August 14, 2006
North Salem Central 
School District
North Salem, New 
York
588235 1631286
1631287
1631288
Waiver 2007 November 20, 2007
Otis School District
Otis, Colorado
410701 1126513 Waiver 2004 January 30, 2007
Perspectives Charter 
School
Chicago, Illinois
527318 1461956 Review 2006 March 9, 2007
Portsmouth Public 
Library
Portsmouth, Virginia
526678 1459854 Waiver 2006 December 18, 2006
Presidio Networked 
Solutions, Inc. (Pharr-
San Juan-Alamo ISD)
Greenbelt, MD
419172 1155298 Review 2004 August 6, 2009
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
17
Professional 
Education Resources, 
Inc. (Yarbrough 
School District)
Little Rock, Arkansas
444755 1286465 Review 2005 February 9, 2009
Propel Charter 
Schools
Canonsburg, Ohio
520936 1434009 Waiver 2006 May 18, 2007
Relcomm, Inc.
(Atlantic City Board 
of Education)
West Berlin, New 
Jersey
370716 
374023 
404818
1022916
1023492
1185824
1185996
1185946
1185717
1185789
1185745
Review 2003
2004
April 3, 2006
Round Lake Area 
Schools Community 
Unit District #116
Round Lake, Illinois
487173 1351842
1351843
1351844
1351845
Waiver 2005 October 13, 2005
Salisbury-Elk Lick 
School District
Salisbury, 
Pennsylvania
608360 1676942 Waiver 2008 November 10, 2008
Santa Clara Day 
School
Espanola, New 
Mexico
222384 617247 Waiver 2001 September 17, 2009
Scholars Academy
St. Louis, Missouri
607013 1748112 
1748123 
1748135
Waiver 2008 April 17, 2009
School District Unit 
46
Elgin, Illinois
620648 1709846 Waiver 2008 August 3, 2009
Septima Clark Public 
Charter School
Washington, District 
of Columbia
633701 1755915
1755990
1756477
1756600
Review 2008 September 16, 2009
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
18
St. Christopher-
Ottillie Schools
Seaford, New York
434683 1211697
1211698
1211701
1211702
Review 2004 October 17, 2005
St. Mark’s High 
School
Wilmington, 
Delaware
480374 1342171 Review 2005 July 12, 2006
St. Rose of Lima 
School
New York, New York
429290 1190833
1190871
Waiver 2004 March 2, 2009
St. Theresa School
West Roxbury, 
Massachusetts
472242 1300986 Review 2005 February 20, 2007
Traverse Area District 
Library
Traverse City, 
Michigan
489595 Unassigned Review 
and/or 
Waiver
2005 December 13, 2005
Weld County School 
District RE-1
Gilcrest, Colorado
486343 1349552
1349609
1349655
1349682
1349732
1349754
1349778
1349797
1349812
1349846
1349862
1349878
1349892
1349903
1349925
1349951
1349962
1349976
1349990
1350000
1350008
1350017
1350026
1350080
Review 2005 December 21, 2006
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
19
Western Reserve 
Board of Education
Berlin Center, Ohio
234951
234783
549905 
549926 
549964 
550019
549311
Waiver 2001 May 30, 2006
West Mifflin Area 
School District
West Mifflin, 
Pennsylvania
588835
588837
1631888
1631889
Waiver 2007 October 26, 2007
Yeshivas Darchei 
Torah
Southfield, Michigan
398208 197400 Waiver 2004 October 20, 2005
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-929 
20
APPENDIX C
Appeals Filed Untimely With USAC and the Commission
Petitioner Application 
Number
Funding 
Request 
Number
Type of 
Appeal
Funding 
Year
Appeal Filed with the 
Commission
Conneaut Area City 
Schools
Conneaut, Ohio
489200 
489263
1357826
1357827
Waiver 2005 July 26, 2006
Estancia Municipal 
School District
Estancia, New 
Mexico
585776 1625164 Waiver 2007 July 17, 2009
Govplace 
(Placentia-Yorba 
Linda Unified 
School District)
Irvine, California
367373 1022022
1022031
1022039
Review 2003 March 15, 2006
Rochester School 
District
Rochester, New 
Hampshire
353837 953205 Review 
and/or 
Waiver
2003 July 14, 2006
Yeshiva Yagdil 
Torah
Brooklyn, New 
York
619267 1705847 Review 2008 February 25, 2009