Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Requests for Review of ) Decisions of the ) Universal Service Administrator by ) ) Alton Community Unit School District 11, ) File Nos. SLD-518052, et al. Alton, Illinois, et al. ) ) Schools and Libraries Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 02-6 Support Mechanism ) ORDER Adopted: June 2, 2010 Released: June 2, 2010 By the Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this order, we address issues related to the invoicing process used by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) in its administration of the E-rate program (formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism). First, we grant 49 appeals of USAC decisions filed by applicants for funding from the E-rate program. USAC denied funding to these applicants because their invoice forms were late or not received by USAC.1 Upon review of these appeals, we find, consistent with the decision in Canon-McMillan, that non-payment of these invoices is not warranted, given that the applicants missed a USAC procedural deadline and did not violate a Commission rule.2 Therefore, we remand the invoices at issue here to USAC for further action consistent with this order. To ensure that the invoices are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to accept each invoice as timely filed and disburse funding, if warranted, based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of this order.3 1 See Appendices A-C. Appendix A contains a list of the 49 appeals granted in this order. Appendix B contains a list of all the applicants included in the Request for Review filed by Novell, Inc. Appendix C contains a list of applicants included in the Request for Waiver filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP. In this order, we use the term “appeals” to refer generally to requests for review or waiver that are related to decisions issued by USAC. 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). 2 Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Canon-McMillan School District, et al., Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, File Nos. SLD-360219, et al., CC Docket No. 02- 6, 23 FCC Rcd 15555 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2008) (Canon-McMillan Order) (finding good cause to waive USAC’s deadline for FCC Forms 472 or 474). 3 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 all grounds for denial. For those applications where the appropriate form was not submitted to USAC previously, we direct USAC to solicit submission of the invoice form no later than 15 calendar days from the release of this order and to remit payment associated with the solicited invoice form, if warranted, no later than 90 calendar days from the receipt of the invoice form. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 2 2. In addition, on our own motion,4 we clarify that an electronic funds transfer mechanism to distribute universal service support payments invoiced by service providers does not conflict with the Commission’s directive that service providers must remit the E-rate discount amount to the applicant “prior to tendering or making use of the payment from the Administrator.”5 We find that the electronic funds transfer system will not undermine the fundamental purpose of the restriction on the FCC Form 472, which is to ensure that the service provider does not divert universal service support payments from the applicant. II. INVOICE APPEALS A. Background 3. 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 Following completion of the application and fulfillment of the Commission’s competitive bidding requirements, USAC informs the applicants and service providers in the Funding Commitment Decision Letter (FCDL) the extent to which, if any, the requested funding will be provided.7 If a request for funding is approved, applicants must submit an FCC Form 486 to USAC confirming receipt of supported services from the specified service providers.8 4. After the eligible services have been delivered, the applicant determines which payment method to use to secure reimbursement from USAC for the services rendered under the E-rate program.9 If the applicant pays the full cost of the services, then the applicant must submit an FCC Form 472, Billed Entity Application for Reimbursement (BEAR) form, to secure reimbursement from USAC.10 If the applicant pays only the reduced cost of the services, then the service provider must file an FCC Form 474, Service Provider Invoice (SPI) form, to receive its reimbursement.11 Based on information provided on the FCC Form 472 or the FCC Form 474, USAC remits the E-rate support payments to the service 4 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.46. 5 See Universal Service for Schools and Libraries, FCC Form 472, Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement Form, OMB 3060- 0856, at 4 (April 2007) (emphasis added) (FCC Form 472); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Second Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202, 9216 at para. 42 (2003) (Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order). 6 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.501-54.504. 7 See USAC website, Receive Your Funding Decision, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step09/ (retrieved June 1, 2010). 8 See USAC website, FCC Form 486 Filing Information, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step10/form486-filing-information.aspx (retrieved June 1, 2010). 9 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, 9217-19, paras. 44-50 (2003) (Schools Second Report and Order); see also USAC website, Form 472 BEAR Filing Guidance, http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/8bear.asp (retrieved June 1, 2010); USAC website, Invoice Filing Information USAC, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step11/ (retrieved June 1, 2010). Beginning July 1, 2004, the Commission’s rules require the service provider to allow the applicant to select the method governing the payment for services rendered in accordance with the E-rate program. See 47 C.F.R. §54.514 (b). 10 FCC Form 472, Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement (BEAR) Form, available at http://www.universalservice.org/_res/documents/sl/pdf/472.pdf (retrieved June 1, 2010). 11 FCC Form 474, Service Provider Invoice (SPI) Form, available at http://www.universalservice.org/_res/documents/sl/pdf/474.pdf (retrieved June 1, 2010). Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 3 provider.12 Service providers reimbursing applicants (billed entities) via the BEAR process must remit the amount authorized by USAC to the billed entity within 20 business days of receiving the reimbursement payment.13 Since funding year 2003, the relevant invoice forms must be postmarked no later than 120 days after the date of the FCC Form 486 notification letter or 120 days after the last day to receive service, whichever is later.14 An applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline.15 B. Discussion 5. In this order, we grant 49 appeals of decisions by USAC denying funding because it found that the invoice forms, either the FCC Form 472 or the FCC Form 474, were late or not received by USAC. 16 Petitioners present a number of explanations for the timing of their invoice submissions, or the lack thereof. Some petitioners assert that staff turnover or miscommunications between staff as E-rate duties were transitioned to a new employee resulted in a failure by the applicants to file their invoice forms on time.17 For example, Springer Municipal Schools claimed that its E-rate staff person resigned 12 See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1914, 1919, para. 9 (2002); see also Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9217, para. 42. 13 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.514(b); see also Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9219, para.51. 14 See USAC website, June 2002 Announcements, Invoicing Deadlines Extended, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/tools/news-archive/2002/062002.asp#062002 (retrieved June 1, 2010). Prior to funding year 2003, invoice deadlines were as follows: For funding year 1998, the invoice deadline was March 28, 2000. See USAC website, February 2000 Announcements, Final Payment Date for Year 1 Invoices Approaches, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/tools/news-archive/2000/022000.asp#yr1inv (retrieved June 1, 2010). For funding year 1999, the invoice deadline was November 20, 2000. See USAC website, October 2000 Announcements, Reminder of November 20 Deadline for Submitting BEAR Forms and Service Provider Invoices for Year 2, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/tools/news-archive/2000/102000.asp#102700 (retrieved June 1, 2010). For funding year 2000, the invoice deadline was January 31, 2002 or no later than 90 days after the date of the FCC Form 486 notification letter to the service provider. See USAC website, Funding Year 3 Disbursement Closeout Process, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/tools/news-archive/2001/112001.asp#111301 (retrieved June 1, 2010). For funding year 2001, the invoice deadline was December 9, 2002. See USAC website, December 2002 Announcements, Deadline for Invoices for FY 2001Recurring Services, http://www.universalservice.org/sl/tools/news-archive/2002/122002.asp#120302a (retrieved June 1, 2010). For funding year 2002, the invoice deadline was December 31, 2002. See USAC website, October 2003 Announcements, Two October Deadlines for Certain Applicants, http://www.usac.org/sl/tools/news- archive/2003/102003.asp#100803 (retrieved June 1, 2010). 15 See http://www.universalservice.org/sl/applicants/step11/invoice-deadlines-extension-requests.aspx (retrieved June 1, 2010). 16 See Appendix A. 17 Request for Review of Annunciation School; Request for Review of Beecher City Community Unit District #20; Request for Review of Billings School District; Request for Review of Burlington City School District; Request for Review of Claiborne County Public Schools; Request for Review of Consorcio Colegios Catolicos Arquidiocesis de San Juan; Request for Review of Cranfills Gap Independent School District; Request for Review of Dublin City School District; Request for Review of Duquesne City School District; Request for Review of Fredericksburg City School District; Request for Waiver of Greensville County School District; Request for Waiver of Hartford Public Library; Request for Waiver of Haworth Independent School District 6; Request for Review of Laguna Department of Education; Request for Review of Lexington/Richland School District #5; Request for Review of May Independent School District; Requests for Review of Mother Lode Internet (Form 471 Application Numbers 339077, 395821, and 461568); Request for Review of Northeast Parent & Child Society; Request for Review of Novell, Inc.; Request for Waiver of Ohio County Schools; Request for Waiver of Peekskill City School District; Requests for Review of San Jacinto Unified School District (Form 471 Application Numbers 477862 and 503533); Request for Review of Springer Municipal Schools; Request for Review of United Talmudical Academy of Burough Park; and Requests for Review of Westbury Union Free School District (Form 471 Application Numbers 488304 (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 4 from her position without completing the invoice forms, and Lexington/Richland School District #5 claimed that it has had repeated staff turnover and ineffective consultants.18 Several petitioners assert that they were confused about the rules and the invoice process.19 Four petitioners filed an invoice form but made an error and, by the time the error was discovered, it was too late to file a new invoice.20 Three applicants were late because of errors made by the service provider,21 and one service provider claims that the applicant failed to schedule its installation on time.22 Finally, in three appeals, the petitioners argue that they filed their FCC Forms 472 and 474 on time, but never received funding.23 In addition, for five (...continued from previous page) and 538739) (all asserting that staff turnover or miscommunications as E-rate duties were transitioned to a new employee resulted in a failure by the applicants to file their invoice forms on time). 18 Request for Review of Springer Municipal Schools at 2; Request for Review of Lexington/Richland School District #5 at 3. 19 Request for Waiver of Alton Community Unit School District 11 (claiming misunderstanding with the vendor on the filing requirements and on issues dealing with the billing format and accuracy of the bills); Request for Waiver of Barrington Community Unit School District 220 (claiming misunderstanding with the vendor on the filing requirements and on issues dealing with the billing format and accuracy of the bills); Request for Review of Carlson Valley School (claiming that this was the first year it sought reimbursements and did not fully understand the BEAR process); Request for Review of Cherokee Central School (claiming Cherokee thought the service provider was going to file a Form 474 and the service provider thought Cherokee was going to file the Form 472, but neither form was filed); Request for Waiver of Decatur Public Schools (claiming misunderstanding with the vendor on the filing requirements and on issues dealing with the billing format and accuracy of the bills); Request for Review of Integrity Networking Solutions (Santa Fe Indian School) (claiming that it filed for a contract extension and thought it would automatically receive the invoice extension); Request for Waiver of Moore County School District (claiming Form 472 was file late due to human error); Request for Waiver of Paulding Exempted Village Schools (claiming lack of communication between the school and the service provider resulted in missed deadline); and Request for Waiver of Southern Door County School District (claiming that its E-rate person did not know how to file the Form 472). 20 Request for Waiver of Broome-Tioga BOCES (claiming it made a mistake on the Form 472 and, when the mistake was realized, it was after the invoice deadline); Request for Review of CDW-G (Aldine Independent School District) (claiming it submitted the Form 472 with errors and wanted to submit a second Form 472, but it was after the invoice deadline); Request for Waiver of Jefferson Davis County School District (claiming an error was made on its first Form 472 and, when the error was realized. it was outside the invoice deadline); and Request for Review of Wayne County Public Library (claims it filed for an invoice extension but forgot to include the FRN number and too much time passed before the error was found). 21 Request for Review of Santa Ana Unified School District (claiming that its service provider’s calculations of California Teleconnect discounts delayed the filing of the invoices). Request for Waiver of Southwestern Bell Telephone LP (claiming that it had a billing error in its computer system due to system upgrades and did not know there was a problem until after the deadline). Request for Review of Yeshiva Ohr Elchonon Chabad West Coast Talmudical Seminary (claiming that the service provider did not fax back page 4 of the Form 472 and, when it finally did so, the deadline had passed). 22 Request for Review of ePlus Technology, Inc. (District of Columbia Public Schools) (claiming that, because the school district failed to schedule installation services for the project in a timely manner, the filing of the Form 474 was late) 23 Request for Waiver of McAlester Public Schools I-80, Midwest City-Del City School District, and Oklahoma City School District I-89; Request for Review of Qwest Corporation (Educational Service Unit No. 17) (noting that it filed its FCC Form 474 timely and, after months of trying to figure out what happened to its invoices, was told by USAC to request an extension of the invoice deadline); Request for Waiver of Verona Board of Education (arguing that its FCC Form 472 was filed on time, but the check was lost and USAC directed it to invoice again). Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 5 petitioners, we find good cause to waive section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules, which establishes deadlines for affected parties to seek review of USAC decisions.24 6. Based on the facts and circumstances of these specific cases, we find that good cause exists to grant these appeals. As the Bureau found in the Canon-McMillan Order, we find that complete rejection of these invoices is not warranted, given that the applicants missed a USAC procedural deadline and did not violate a Commission rule.25 As the Commission noted in Bishop Perry Middle School, a departure from required filing deadlines may be warranted upon careful review of the petitioner’s case and when doing so will serve the public interest.26 Generally, these applicants claim that staff changes or inadvertent errors on the part of their staff resulted in the late filing or failure to file the FCC Form 472 or FCC Form 474. We believe that the petitioners have demonstrated that they made good faith efforts to comply with programmatic rules. We note that those tasked with working on E-rate applications are typically school administrators, technology coordinators, teachers, and librarians who may have little experience with the invoice requirements for the E-rate program. This may be particularly true of staff at small school districts or libraries. 7. We find that denying the petitioners’ requests would create undue hardship and prevent these otherwise eligible schools and libraries from receiving funding that they need to bring advanced telecommunications and information services to their students and patrons. Requiring USAC to take these additional steps will not reduce or eliminate any invoice review procedures or program requirements with which applicants must comply in order to receive funding. Although the invoice deadline is an important element in helping the Commission guard against the waste of program funds, there is no evidence at this time in the record that the petitioners engaged in activity to defraud or otherwise abuse the E-rate program. We further note that granting these requests should have a minimal effect on the fund as a whole.27 24 Specifically, section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules provides parties with 60 days to appeal a decision by USAC to either USAC or the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. Duquesne City School District indicates that it was late filing its appeal because the 60-day appeal period mistakenly was computed based on the receipt date instead of the issuance dates of the decision letters. Letter of Appeal of Duquesne City School District at 2. When Duquesne City School District filed its appeal with the Commission on Jan. 25, 2008, it was only five days late. See Letters from USAC, Schools and Libraries, to Debra Kriete (dated Nov. 21, 2007) (Administrator’s Decision on Invoice Appeal). While the other three petitioners, Claiborne County Public Schools, Westbury Union Free School District (Form 471 Application Number 538739), and Yeshiva Ohr Elchonon Chabad West Coast Talmudical Seminary, did not provide reasons for filing their appeals late to the Commission, their appeals were only seven or fewer days late. See Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries, to Julia Odom, Claiborne County Public Schools (dated Aug. 11, 2006) (Administrator’s Decision on Invoice Appeal) (filing its appeal two days late); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries, to Winston E. Himsworth, Westbury Union Free School District (Form 471 Application Number 538739) (dated April 24, 2009) (Administrator’s Decision on Invoice Deadline Extension Request) (filing its appeal seven days late); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries, to Mendel Spalter, Yeshiva Ohr Elchonon West Coast Talmudical Seminary (dated Sept. 1, 2009) (Administrator’s Decision on Invoice Deadline Extension Request) (filing its appeal two days late). We therefore grant a waiver of the filing deadline in section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules for these petitioners. 47 C.F.R. § 54.720. 25 Canon-McMillan Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 15558, para. 7. 26 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, para. 9 (2006) (Bishop Perry Order). 27 We estimate that the appeals granted in this order involve applications for approximately $6.7 million in funding for funding years 1998 through 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 Third Quarter 2010 (Apr. 30, 2010). Thus, we determine that the action we take today should have minimal impact on the Universal Service Fund as a whole. Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 6 8. We emphasize the limited nature of this decision. This order does not diminish applicants’ obligations to adhere to the E-rate program’s procedures and deadlines and to submit complete and accurate information to USAC as part of the invoicing process. We recognize that filing deadlines are necessary for the efficient administration of the E-rate program and, although we grant these 49 appeals, our action here does not eliminate USAC’s deadlines for filing the FCC Form 472 and the FCC Form 474. In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of the services or payments requested.28 9. 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 these appeals, this action in no way affects 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 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. III. ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER 10. On September 28, 2009, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced that, pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), all federal universal service fund support payments must be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT).29 The Bureau stated that recipients of universal service fund support payments must provide their financial institution information and other relevant information on the FCC Form 498 (Service Provider Identification Number and Contact Information Form), which was being revised to conform to the requirements of the DCIA.30 On November 2, 2009, the revised FCC Form 498 was approved by the Office of Management and Budget.31 The Bureau is also releasing a public notice today establishing August 31, 2010 as the effective date of the electronic disbursement of universal service support payments.32 After August 31, 2010, if a recipient of universal service support payments fails to provide the required financial institution information on its FCC Form 498 to enable payment by EFT, USAC will not make universal service support payments to that entity until the entity provides the required information. 11. Some service providers have expressed concern that the FCC Form 472, which is used in the E-rate program, may conflict with the use of EFT in that the FCC Form 472 requires the service 28 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. 29 See Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Mandatory Electronic Disbursement of Universal Service Support Payments, CC Docket No. 02-6, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 12124 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2009) (USF Electronic Disbursement Public Notice); 31 U.S.C. §3332(f)(1). 30 See USF Electronic Disbursement Public Notice. 31 See FCC Form 498, Service Provider Identification Number and Contact Information Form, OMB 3060-0824 (November 2009). 32 See Wireline Competition Bureau Establishes the Effective Date for Electronic Disbursement of Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Public Notice, DA 10-270 (Wireline Comp. Bur. June 2, 2010). Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 7 provider to “remit the discount amount … to the billed entity within twenty days of receiving the reimbursement payment from the Administrator and prior to tendering or making use of the payment from the Administrator.”33 For example, depositing funds electronically into the account of a service provider may result in the service provider earning interest on those funds until the funds are passed along to the E- rate applicant. 12. We find that an EFT mechanism to distribute universal service support payments will not conflict with or otherwise undermine the fundamental purpose of the restriction on the FCC Form 472, which is to prevent the service provider from diverting for its own use universal service support payments from the applicant.34 The E-rate program’s restriction on tender or other use of the funds prior to remittance of the discounted amount to the applicant was intended to underscore that such money does not belong to the service provider, and thus may not be used for other purposes.35 As we have previously stated, “BEAR payments are not the property of the service provider, which has been paid in full.”36 Consistent with this, vendors must handle these payments in a manner that does not jeopardize the integrity of the funds or impair the vendor’s ability to make prompt remittance to the applicant not later than 20 days after receipt of the funds from USAC. Thus, as long as the reimbursed funds are merely held by the service provider prior to being remitted to the applicant within the requisite 20-day period, as required by section 54.514(b) of the Commission’s rules, we will find no violation of the restriction on the tender or other use of the funds.37 In addition, we find that electronic disbursement of universal service support payments by EFT is required by the DCIA and federal financial management and reporting statutes.38 Specifically, section 54.702(n) of the Commission’s rules provides that “[i]n administering the universal service fund, [USAC] shall also comply with all relevant and applicable federal financial management and reporting statutes.”39 Because USAC is required to comply with federal statutes governing the management, accounting, and reporting of relevant financial, management, and similar information, USAC must also comply with the DCIA, which requires the use of EFT.40 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 under 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 Appendices A-C ARE GRANTED and REMANDED to USAC for further consideration to the extent provided herein. 33 See Universal Service for Schools and Libraries, FCC Form 472, Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement Form, OMB 3060- 0856, at 4 (April 2007) (emphasis added); Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9216, para. 42. 34 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22485 (erratum at 22493), 22488-89, para. 6 (1997). 35 Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9219, para. 51. 36 Id. 37 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.514(b); FCC Form 471 at 4. Moreover, we anticipate that service providers will remit the funds to the applicant as soon as practicable after receipt from USAC and that the accrual of any interest will be de minimis. 38 See 31 U.S.C. §3332(f)(1) (requiring that “all Federal payments made after January 1, 1999, shall be made by electronic funds transfer,” except in rare cases where exceptions are granted by the Secretary of the Treasury); 31 C.F.R. Part 208; 31 C.F.R. Part 210 (setting forth the implementing rules pertinent to participation in the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network). 39 47 C.F.R. § 54.702(n). 40 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.702(n); 31 U.S.C. §3332(f)(1). Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 8 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 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), waivers of section 54.720 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 54.720, ARE GRANTED to Duquesne City School District; Claiborne County Public Schools; Westbury Union Free School District (Form 471 Application No. 538739); and Yeshiva Ohr Elchonon Chabad West Coast Talmudical Seminary and their invoice forms ARE REMANDED to USAC for further consideration consistent with this order. 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 under sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), the Universal Service Administrative Company SHALL COMPLETE its review of each remanded request for reimbursement and REMIT payment, if warranted, based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of this order or no later than 90 calendar days after the receipt of the appropriate invoice form as provided herein. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carol E. Mattey Deputy Chief Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 9 APPENDIX A List of Applicants Whose Appeals are Granted in this Order Petitioner Application Number Funding Year Date Appeal Filed Alton Community Unit School District 11 Alton, IL 518052, 576715 2006, 2007 11/10/2009 Annunciation School Denver, CO 506132 2006 3/10/2010 Barrington Community Unit School District 220 Barrington, IL 532574 2006 12/28/2009 Beecher City Community Unit District No. 20 Beecher City, IL 471795 2005 7/29/2008 Billings School District 2 Billings, MT 455804 2005 3/30/2009 Burlington City School District Burlington, NJ 447054 2005 5/15/2009 Carlson Valley School Glenside, PA 501164, 530589 2006 4/7/2009 CDW-G (Aldine Independent School District) Houston, TX 358885 2003 6/27/2007 Cherokee Central School Cherokee, NC 535408 2006 6/22/2009 Claiborne County Public Schools Port Gibson, MS 372033 2003 10/11/2006 Consorcio Colegios Catolicos Arquidiocesis de San Juan Guaynabo, PR 556529, 561926, 556724 2007 11/3/2008 Cranfills Gap Independent School District Cranfills Gap, TX 512118, 512230, 561025 2006, 2007 2/26/2010 Decatur School District Decatur, IL 516857, 568177 2006, 2007 8/18/2009 Dublin City Schools Beachwood, OH 423506, 423596 2004 11/27/2007 Duquesne City School District Duquesne, PA 401517 2004 1/25/2008 ePlus Technology, Inc. (District of Columbia Public Schools) Washington, DC 380358 2003 6/22/2009 Fredericksburg City School District Fredericksburg, VA 445803 2005 10/8/2008 Greensville County School District Emporia, VA 403233, 421968 2004 10/8/2008 Hartford Public Library Hartford, CT 303534, 362118, 434831 2002, 2003, 2004 7/6/2007 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 10 Petitioner Application Number Funding Year Date Appeal Filed Haworth Independent School District 6 Haworth, OK 561929 2007 4/19/2010 Integrity Networking Solutions (Santa Fe Indian School) Santa Fe, NM 382920 2003 8/3/2007 Jefferson Davis County School District Meadville, MS 486174 2005 1/12/2009 Laguna Department of Education Laguna, NM 530582 2006 9/29/2009 Lexington/Richland School District #5 Irmo, SC 478189 2008 6/9/2008 May Independent School District May, TX 530181 2006 4/7/2009 McAlester Public Schools I-80, Midwest City-Del City School District, Oklahoma City School District I-89 Allen, OK 391937, 406976, 412623 2004 1/5/2009 Moore County School District Lynchburg, TN 518479 2006 1/7/2008 Mother Lode Internet Sonora, CA 339077 2003 11/6/2007 Mother Lode Internet Sonora, CA 395821 2004 11/6/2007 Mother Lode Internet Sonora, CA 461568 2005 11/6/2007 Northeast Parent & Child Society Schenectady, NY 476007 2005 1/9/2008 Novell, Inc. Provo, UT See Appendix B See Appendix B 11/13/2007 Ohio County Schools Hartford, KY 425705 2004 12/12/2006 Paulding Exempted Village Schools Paulding, OH 117018, 161992, 390734, 349436 2003 10/12/2007 Peekskill City School District Peekskill, NY 429348 2004 3/23/2007 Qwest Corporation (Educational Service Unit No. 17) Ainsworth, NE 500603 2006 4/24/2009 San Jacinto Unified School District San Jacinto, CA 477862 2005 3/13/2009 San Jacinto Unified School District San Jacinto, CA 503533 2006 3/13/2009 Santa Ana Unified School District Santa Ana, CA 550546 2007 3/25/2010 Southern Door County School District Fond du Lac, WI 391661, 474978, 476285 2004 7/14/2008 Southwestern Bell Telephone, LP Washington , DC See Appendix C See Appendix C 2/24/2004 Springer Municipal School Springer, NM 482123 2005 5/12/2009 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 11 Petitioner Application Number Funding Year Date Appeal Filed The Thomas Group (Broome-Tioga BOCES) Binghamton, NY 529485 2006 10/22/2008 United Talmudical Academy of Burough Park Brooklyn, NY 526446 2006 4/28/2009 Verona Board of Education Verona, NJ 420500 2004 10/31/2007 Wayne County Public Library Wooster, OH 495834 2006 10/14/2008 Westbury Union Free School District Westbury, NY 488304 2005 11/4/2008 Westbury Union Free School District Westbury, NY 538739 2006 6/30/2009 Yeshiva Ohr Elchonon Chabad West Coast Talmudical Seminary Los Angeles, CA 560939 2007 11/2/2009 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 12 APPENDIX B List of Applicants and Application Numbers Included in Request for Review filed November 12, 2007 by Novell, Inc. Applicant Name Application Number Funding Year Agra Independent School District 134 Agra, OK 363792 2003 Allendale County School District Allendale, SC 234225 2001 Altheimer Unified School District Altheimer, AR 250374 2001 Anderson County School District Clinton, TN 123056 1999 Atkinson County School District Pearson, GA 231352 2001 Bacon County School District Alma, GA 143645 1999 Canton Public School District Columbia, MS 124514 1999 Casey-Westfield County Unified School District C-4 Casey, IL 138450 1999 Coahoma County School District Clarksdale, MS 253618 2001 Colquitt County School District Moultrie, GA 328924 2002 Commerce Public Schools Commerce, OK 255723 2000 Covington County School District Collins, MS 236866 2001 Crawford County School District Roberta, GA 112158 1998 Dillon County School District 2 Dillon, SC 361025 2003 Dinuba Unified School District Dinuba, CA 178359 2000 Dinuba Unit School District Dinuba, CA 142835 1999 Dixon School District R 1 Dixon, MO 23488 1998 Dooly County School System Vienna, GA 234314 2001 Edgewood Independent School District San Antonio, TX 327722 2002 Edgewood Independent School District San Antonio, TX 356761 2003 Evansville-Vanderburgh School District Evansville, IN 134554 1999 Evansville-Vanderburgh School District Evansville, IN 134556 1999 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 13 Applicant Name Application Number Funding Year Evening Shade School District Evening Shade, AR 28126 1998 Fairfax Elementary School District Bakersfield, CA 13247 1998 Fairfax Elementary School District Bakersfield, CA 119881 1999 Fairview Area School District Williamsburg, MI 136316 1999 Florence County School District 3 Lake City, SC 224402 2001 Gainesville School District R5 Gainesville, MO 109506 1998 Georgetown County School District Georgetown, SC 308502 2002 Graves County School District Frankfort, KY 110131 1998 Greenville School District R-2 Greenville, MO 127882 1999 Hampshire Collaborative Northampton, MA 145724 1999 Harrison Central School District Harrison, NY 122975 1999 Hazelhurst City School District Hazlehurst, MS 305225 2002 Hearne Independent School District Hearne, TX 31959 1998 Holy Angels Catholic School Indianapolis, IN 143818 1999 Jackson County School Board Marianna, FL 322096 2002 Jackson County School Board Marianna, FL 365555 2003 Jefferson County School District Louisville, GA 244360 2001 Leake County School District Carthage, MS 315574 2002 Lee County School District Bishopville, SC 302924 2002 Leflore County School District Greenwood, MS 105876 1998 Lenoir County Public Schools Kinston, NC 244417 2001 Lincoln Park High School Chicago, IL 136130 1999 Louisville Municipal School District Louisville, MS 152794 1999 Louisville Municipal School District Louisville, MS 174394 2000 Marion 2 School District Mullins, SC 245349 2001 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 14 Applicant Name Application Number Funding Year Marion 2 School District Mullins, SC 358720 2003 Marion County School District Columbia, MS 125579 1999 Marion County School District 7 Rains, SC 289457 2002 Marlin Independent School District Marlin, TX 324453 2002 Maud Independent School District 117 Maud, OK 349019 2003 McComb School District McComb, MS 344339 2003 Meridian School District Meridian, MS 108051 1998 Minidoka Co Joint School District 331 Rupert, ID 119821 1999 Monroe County School District Amory, MS 352991 2003 Montgomery County School District Winona, MS 253578 2001 Montgomery County School District Winona, MS 363154 2003 Mountain View School District Mountain View, AR 112977 1999 Navasota Independent School District Navasota, TX 345241 2003 New York Public Library New York, NY 294415 2002 North Panola Consolidated School District Sardis, MS 324269 2002 Okemah Independent School District 26 Okemah, OK 173430 2000 Orofino JT School District 171 Orofino, ID 352045 2003 Orofino JT School District 171 Orofino, ID 354035 2003 Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District Pharr, TX 249022 2001 Pierce County School District Blackshear, GA 28074 1998 Porter Consolidated School District I-35 Porter, OK 366168 2003 Richland School District Shafter, CA 366256 2003 Richland School District R-1 Essex, MO 136484 1999 Richland-Lerdo Union Elementary School District Shafter, CA 232699 2001 Richland-Lerdo Union Elementary School District Shafter, CA 311350 2002 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 15 Applicant Name Application Number Funding Year Saginaw Public School District Saginaw, MI 338137 2003 San Augustine School District San Augustine, TX 185200 2000 San Augustine School District San Augustine, TX 342006 2003 South Delta School District Rolling Fork, MS 221045 2001 St. Angela Merici School Bronx, NY 185459 2000 Sumter County School District Two Sumter, SC 323365 2002 Taos Municipal School District Taos, NM 248272 2001 Taos Municipal School District Taos, NM 308847 2002 Western Yell County School District Havana, AR 138277 1999 Wewoka Independent School District 2 Wewoka, OK 354410 2003 Wildwood School District Wildwood, NJ 301559 2002 Yazoo City Municipal School District Yazoo City, MS 349951 2003 Youngstown City School District Youngstown, OH 153405 1999 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 16 APPENDIX C List of Applicants and Application Numbers Included in Request for Waiver filed February 24, 2004 by Southwestern Bell Telephone LP Applicant Name Application Number Funding Year Alice Independent School District Alice, TX 319837 2002 Arlington Independent School District Arlington, TX 305715 2002 Beaumont Independent School District Beaumont, TX 286558 2002 Belton Independent School District Belton, TX 303704 2002 Birdville Independent School District Haltom, TX 301691 2002 Castleberry Independent School District Fort Worth, TX 309548 2002 Channelview School District Channelview, TX 309825 2002 Chase County Unified School District 284 Cottonwood Falls, KS 312746 2002 Cuero Public Library Cuero, TX 305920 2002 Edgewood Independent School District San Antonio, TX 327722 2002 Harmony Science Academy Houston, TX 329714 2002 La Joya Independent School District La Joya, TX 317750 2002 Mustang Public Schools Mustang, OK 315703 2002 New Braunfels Independent School District New Braunfels, TX 328947 2002 North Forest Independent School District Houston, TX 317574 2002 Pauls Valley School District 18 Pauls Valley, OK 286089 2002 Pharr-San-Juan-Alamo Independent School District Pharr, TX 303671 2002 Pittsburg Public Library Pittsburg, KS 310684 2002 Region Education Service Center 13 Austin, TX 331393 2002 Renwick Unified School District 267 Andale, KS 321773 2002 Round Rock Independent School District Round Rock, TX 309961 2002 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-999 17 Applicant Name Application Number Funding Year St. Francis De Sales School Houston, TX 289342 2002 Texans Can! Dallas, TX 329041 2002 Victoria Public Library Victoria, TX 306433 2002 Waco Independent School District Waco, TX 288663 2002 Wichita Unified School District 259 Wichita, KS 285444 2002 Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, TX 299321 2002