FCC Web Documents citing 54.723

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.txt
  • end-user revenues. Second, Petitioners allege that the Administrator lacked authority to reject Petitioners' Forms 499-A for 2001. Petitioners ask the Commission to reverse the Administrator's decisions and determine that QAI is liable for all payments, interest, and late charges. The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to consider petitions for review of decisions by the Administrator. Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the standard of review is de novo. III. Discussion For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Administrator properly billed Petitioners from January through June 2001 for the USF obligations resulting from Petitioners' provision of interstate and international telecommunications services to end-users in calendar year 2000. We further conclude that USAC appropriately
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.txt
  • further states that it did not purchase the liabilities of LDD. Big River did not challenge the Administrator's finding that its appeal was untimely, and offers no reason for the late filing of its appeal with USAC. III. Discussion The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to consider petitions for review of decisions by the Administrator. Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the standard of review is de novo. USAC articulated two grounds for denying the appeal. First, USAC denied the appeal as untimely filed. In its appeal to the Commission, Big River offers no facts to counter USAC's conclusion regarding the timeliness of its appeal to USAC, or circumstances that would explain the late filing.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.txt
  • Section 253 of the Communications Act 06/30/09 3060-0862 Handling Confidential Information 06/30/08 3060-0863 Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) 04/30/09 3060-0865 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Universal Licensing System Recordkeeping and Third-Party Disclosure Requirements 07/31/10 3060-0874 FCC 475B, FCC 2000 Series 09/30/10 3060-0876 Sec. 54.703 and Secs. 54.719, 54.720, 54.721, 54.722, 54.723, 54.724 and 54.725 09/30/09 3060-0881 Sec. 95.861 09/30/08 3060-0882 Sec. 95.833 01/31/09 3060-0888 Secs. 76.7, 76.9, 76.61, 76.914, 76.1003, 76.1302, and 76.1513 05/31/08 3060-0894 Secs. 54.313 and 54.316 and Certification Letter Accounting for Receipt of Federal Support and Rate Comparability Review and Certification 09/30/10 3060-0895 FCC 502 05/31/10 3060-0896 Broadcast Auction Form Exhibits 12/31/08 3060-0900 Compatibility of Wireless Services with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.txt
  • F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Waiver of the Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest. Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Although certain Petitioners have requested the Bureau review the decision of the Administrator under section 54.723 of the Commission's rules, we find the appropriate procedural relief is to waive the filing deadline. 47 C.F.R. §§1.3, 54.722(a); see also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Sagebrush Cellular, Inc., Petition for Waiver of Filing Deadline in 47 C.F.R. Sections 54.307(d), 54.314(a) and 54.904(d), Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15139 (Aug. 13, 2007) (Action in which the Bureau waived a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.txt
  • dated Nov. 2, 2005, at 1 (Minnesota OET Application 460616 Request for Review); Letter from Cheryle Zollman, Union Baker Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, dated Jan. 4, 2007, at 1 (Union Baker Request for Review). The Wireline Competition Bureau must conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decision issued by the Administrator. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See AES Request for Review at 2; Grand River Request for Review at 1; Midwestern Intermediate Request for Revew at 1; and YCS Request for Review at 2; see also South Carolina CIO Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5990-91, para. 8. USAC also denied the application of Illinois Century Network because its LOAs were dated after its FCC Form 471
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.txt
  • filing because it was made after the 45-day revision window deadline of December 15, 2007. Aventure argues that it will be severely harmed absent relief because the FCC Form 499-A true-up process will not provide redress until mid-2009. discussion The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to consider petitions for review of decisions by USAC. Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the Bureau shall conduct a de novo review. We find that Aventure has demonstrated good cause to grant its request for relief. In the 2002 Interim Contribution Methodology Order, the Commission established a 45-day period within which carriers may revise their FCC Forms 499-Q. This deadline is essential to eliminate carriers' abilities to revise
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.txt
  • revenue reported on the company's 2006 FCC Form 499-A, which resulted in a non-de minimis status for the company. See id. at Attach., 2. See id. at 3-4. See id. at 5. See id. at 4. The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to consider requests for review of USAC decisions. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the Bureau shall conduct a de novo review. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See supra para. 4. Id. Id. For these reasons, we also find that USAC improperly characterized the Commission's authority as permissive in determining AMTS providers' contribution obligations. See Maritime Request for Review at Attach., 1-2. Universal Service First Report and Order, 12
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.txt
  • FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Waiver of the Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest. Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Although certain petitioners have requested that the Bureau review USAC's decision under section 54.723 of the Commission's rules, we find the appropriate procedural relief is to waive the filing deadline. 47 C.F.R. §§1.3, 54.722(a). See 2007 499-A Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21506, para. 3. See Appendix. (last visited Oct. 7, 2008). (last visited Oct. 7, 2008). Request for Review by Atlantic Digital, Inc. of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.txt
  • submitted a bid in response to Grand Rapids' FCC Form 470 # 930410000393393 on January 10, 2002. Id. Id. at Exhibit F. Id. at 3. Id. at Exhibits I and J. Id. at 3. The service agreement provided a 60-month term and a service start date of June 23, 2003. Id. Id. Id. at 3-4, 6. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See 47 C.F.R. §54.504(c); 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. 1 (2006) (Bishop Perry Order). The Commission may waive any provision of its rules on its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.txt
  • 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). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.txt
  • Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02-6 (dated Nov. 18, 2005); Letter from Larry Scaletta, Thornton Township High School District 205, to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (dated Jan. 13, 2006); Letter from Richard Bocanegra, Edgewood Independent School District, to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (dated Nov. 16, 2007) (collectively, Requests for Review). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723; infra Appendix. We estimate that the appeals granted in this order involve applications for approximately $3.2 million in funding. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.txt
  • implementing statutory requirements for the Universal Service support mechanism, these rules provide the framework and requirements for the review of decisions issued by the Administrator. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 254. Section Number and Title: 54.719 Parties permitted to seek review of Administrator decisions. 54.720 Filing deadlines. 54.721 General filing requirements. 54.722 Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission. 54.723 Standard of review. 54.724 Time periods for Commission approval of Administrator decisions. 54.725 Universal service disbursements during pendency of a request for review and Administrator decision. PART 61-TARIFFS SUBPART E-GENERAL RULES FOR DOMINANT CARRIERS Brief Description: The Part 61 rules are designed to implement the provisions of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. We note also that USAC has provided us with the tracking receipt associated with the filing, showing that it was not dropped off to Federal Express in Peoria until March 30, 2009. We note that even if USAC found that a petitioner met the good-cause standard, we must address that question de novo. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723(a). Furthermore, we disagree with any argument that late revisions filed before the FCC Form 499-A One-Year Deadline Order only needed to explain the ``cause'' of the delay rather than show the ``good cause'' required for waiver of a deadline. If a filer only needed to explain the reason for the revision without reference to the Commission's good cause standard, any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.txt
  • Commission. See Municipal Request for Review. In the interest of administrative efficiency, USAC transmitted the appeal directly to the Commission rather than returning the appeal to the applicant. We therefore consider its appeal as filed with the Commission. See Appendix. The Bureau shall conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See Dutchess ADL; Erie ADL; Georgia ADL; Hacienda ADLs; MSC ADL; Oregon FCDL. With regard to Dutchess's application, USAC found that Dutchess did not have evidence of authority for one consortium member, Ulster County BOCES. See Dutchess ADL. See Dutchess Request for Review at 8-9, Appendices 2 and 4. See also Letter from Juliann Troiano, Dutchess BOCES, and Ari Fitzgerald,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.txt
  • strict adherence to the general rule. Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166; accord NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (stating that in addition to the public interest being well-served, there must also be a sufficiently ``unique situation'' to grant waiver). Although some of the petitioners have requested that the Bureau review USAC's decision under section 54.723 of the Commission's rules, we find the appropriate procedural relief is a request to waive the filing deadline. Compare 47 C.F.R. §§1.3 with 54.723(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.713. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.706, 54.711, and 54.713 (requiring all telecommunications carriers providing interstate telecommunications services and certain other providers of interstate service to file the annual FCC Form 499-A and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.txt
  • District (dated July 7, 2009). See Request for Review. See id. at 1. See E-mail from Chris Wittrien, USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Silverio Pena, Ramirez Common School District (dated Nov. 14, 2008) (Selective Review Information Request). Id. Id. The Bureau must conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See Ramirez FCC Form 470 (requesting, for example, local and long distance telecommunications service, high speed internet access connection, email, and webhosting). See Selective Review Information Request. See Approach Learning Order, 23 FCC Rcd 15510 (concluding that petitioners did not violate the Commission's competitive bidding rules by failing to correctly indicate on their FCC Forms 470 whether they had issued
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.txt
  • Review; Yonkers Request for Review.) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.25 283 Tm 60 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (28) Tj 1 0 0 1 93.35 278.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 122.6 277 Tm 71 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 129.8 278.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 257.049 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (295ee) Tj 1 0 0 1 96.95 257.299 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 138.95 255.399 Tm 76 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 146.4 257.299 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.511.) Tj 1 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.txt
  • Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (The Bureau must conduct a) Tj 1 0 0 1 193.65 216.25 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de novo) Tj 1 0 0 1 227.5 215.799 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 204.75 Tm 96 Tz (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 187.699 Tm 62 Tz (40) Tj 1 0 0 1 80.6 183.149 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (See) Tj 1 0 0 1 97.2 183.149 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 151.9 183.149 Tm /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.503, 54.511; Ysleta Order,) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.txt
  • 82.05 93.849 Tm 99 Tz (The Bureau must conduct a) Tj 1 0 0 1 194.85 93.849 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de novo) Tj 1 0 0 1 228.95 94.099 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued byUSAC. 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 82.099 Tm 96 Tz (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 305 38 Tm 101 Tz (4) Tj ET endstream endobj 48 0 obj 6236 endobj 43 0 obj << /Dest [ 38 0 R /XYZ 0 792 null ] /Next 51 0 R /Parent 4 0 R /Prev 31 0 R /Title (page 5) >> endobj 52 0 obj << /BitsPerComponent 1 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray /DecodeParms
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.txt
  • 93.649 Tm 101 Tz (° The Bureau must conduct a) Tj 1 0 0 1 193.4 93.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de novo) Tj 1 0 0 1 227.25 93.399 Tm 101 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued byUSAC. 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 82.099 Tm 96 Tz (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 303.6 37.25 Tm 100 Tz (4) Tj ET endstream endobj 44 0 obj 5963 endobj 39 0 obj << /Dest [ 34 0 R /XYZ 0 792 null ] /Next 47 0 R /Parent 4 0 R /Prev 31 0 R /Title (page 5) >> endobj 48 0 obj << /BitsPerComponent 1 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray /DecodeParms
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.txt
  • Tm 79 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de nOVO) Tj 1 0 0 1 228.2 93.649 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 515 91.5 Tm 72 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 82.099 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (54.723.) Tj ET endstream endobj 44 0 obj 5801 endobj 37 0 obj << /Dest [ 32 0 R /XYZ 0 792 null ] /Next 47 0 R /Parent 4 0 R /Prev 23 0 R /Title (page 4) >> endobj 48 0 obj << /BitsPerComponent 1 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray /DecodeParms << /Columns 2550 /K -1 >> /Filter /CCITTFaxDecode /Height 3300 /Length
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.txt
  • Columbia has adopted the U.C.C.'s requirements for contract formation. See D.C. Code § 28:2-201 (2001); Request for Review at 7. Request for Review at 8 (citing Andersen v. Cross, 527 N.E. 2d 1098 (Ill. App. 1988) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that performance under the agreement can serve as a substitute for a writing). Id. at 1. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. We estimate that the appeal granted in this order involves applications for approximately $426,000 in funding. 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 Second Quarter 2011 (Jan. 31, 2011). We thus determine that the action we take today
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.txt
  • assigned 20 points to technical solution, multiplied by a weighted value of 4; it assigned 16 points to cost, multiplied by a weighted value of five. Id. at Attachment 3. See id. See supra n. 25. See Request for Review. The Bureau must conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9029, para. 480. See supra n.16. See supra n. 25. See COMAD. (continued....) ¦ µ ¸ Ý Þ æ ¦ µ „ ! ¥ † †
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.txt
  • pending completion of its review of Killeen, Compton, and Meridian's underlying applications on remand. See Benson FCDL; Chesterfield FCDL; St. Cecilia FCDL; Florence FCDL; Galena Park FCDL; Goose Creek FCDL; Allendale FCDL; Fatima FCDL; Hmong FCDL; Irving 2005 FCDL; Irving 2006 FCDL; Killeen FCDL; Lee County FCDL; Meridian COMAD; Richland FCDL; Compton FCDL; Point Pleasant FCDL. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723 (setting forth the Wireline Competition Bureau's obligation to conduct a de novo review of appeals of decisions made by USAC). Allendale considered five criteria, including cost, which was given the highest weight. In order to break a tie between two vendors receiving the same rating, however, Allendale re-evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each vendor's bid, which included a review of whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.txt
  • (2) service level agreement- 200 points; (3) example project- 100 points; (4) customer references- 100 points; (5) vendor summary- 100 points; (6) E-rate clauses- 100 points; and (7) scalability of solution- 100 points.) Marana Request for Review at 2. Id. at 2-3. Id. at 3. Id. at 3, 5. Id. at 5. Id. at 6. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.511, 54.723. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.503(c). Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9076, para. 480 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) (Universal Service First Report and Order). See also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
  • Competition Bureau or the Commission. (a) Requests for review of Administrator decisions that are submitted to the Federal Communications Commission shall be considered and acted upon by the Wireline Competition Bureau; provided, however, that requests for review that raise novel questions of fact, law or policy shall be considered by the full Commission. * * * * * 97. Section 54.723 is revised to read as follows: § 54.723 Standard of review. (a) The Wireline Competition Bureau shall conduct de novo review of request for review of decisions issue by the Administrator. (b) The Federal Communications Commission shall conduct de novo review of requests for review of decisions by the Administrator that involve novel questions of fact, law, or policy; provided,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.txt
  • at 6-7. Id. at 8. Id. at 9-10. Id at 10. See Ysleta Request for Review; IBM Request for Review. As set forth in the Appendix, the eight other schools also timely filed Requests for Review. All of the Requests for Review involve schools that applied as eligible for 90 percent discounts under our discount matrix. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. Id. The factual situations of the similarly situated applicants are set out in the Appendix. See Appendix B, infra. See section IV, infra. To the extent an applicant proceeded to take service, particularly telecommunications services or Internet access, notwithstanding SLD's denial of discounts, we do not and will not provide funding to pay for such services. See para. 75, infra.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-181A1.txt
  • discount paid, and the providers received the discount payment from the fund. They also provided the discounted service in close approximation to the time recovery was sought by the Commission. These factual distinctions also show that there is no constitutional due process violation. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719. The standard of review such an appeal is de novo. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. 47 U.S.C. § 503. See Commitment Adjustment Implementation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 22980-81. . The role of the Good Samaritan is simply to receive the BEAR payment from USAC and pass the reimbursement through to the applicant. USTA Petition. See United States v. Wurts, 303 US 414. 415 (1938); Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 947
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.txt
  • of funds. We also emphasize that any party aggrieved by any action by the Bureau is, of course, free to seek review by this Commission, pursuant to section 1.115 and commit that we will address any such appeal within six months. Moreover, any action by USAC implementing direction from the Bureau is subject to full Commission review pursuant to section 54.723(b). The Managing Director is the agency' designated follow-up official. Pursuant to the Commission's Audit Follow-up Directive, that office ensures that systems for audit follow-up and resolution are documented and in place, that timely responses are made to all audit reports, and that corrective actions are taken. We clarify that the Office of Managing Director remains the agency's audit follow-up official,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.txt
  • at 153, where the Court observed that ``[t]he objects sought merely must have been `compiled' when the Government invokes the Exemption.'' AFR at 1, 2. 47 C.F.R. § 54.701. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15810. See id., 19 FCC Rcd at 15808, 15809, 15811, 15817 & n.49, 15819, 15830 and 15835. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.722 and 54.723. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15809 and 15835. See, e.g., Burka v. Dep't of Health & Human Svcs, 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finding data tapes created and possessed by a contractor to be agency records because of extensive supervision exercised by agency which evidenced ``constructive control''). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). AFR at 1.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.txt
  • in Appendix A, effective thirty (30) days after the publication of this report and order in the Federal Register. 119. IT IS FURTHER 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 54.723(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification or Waiver filed by E-rate Central, as identified in paragraph 84 herein, IS DISMISSED. 120. IT IS FURTHER 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,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1263A1.txt
  • end-user revenues. Second, Petitioners allege that the Administrator lacked authority to reject Petitioners' Forms 499-A for 2001. Petitioners ask the Commission to reverse the Administrator's decisions and determine that QAI is liable for all payments, interest, and late charges. The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to consider petitions for review of decisions by the Administrator. Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the standard of review is de novo. III. Discussion For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Administrator properly billed Petitioners from January through June 2001 for the USF obligations resulting from Petitioners' provision of interstate and international telecommunications services to end-users in calendar year 2000. We further conclude that USAC appropriately
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1277A1.txt
  • further states that it did not purchase the liabilities of LDD. Big River did not challenge the Administrator's finding that its appeal was untimely, and offers no reason for the late filing of its appeal with USAC. III. Discussion The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to consider petitions for review of decisions by the Administrator. Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the standard of review is de novo. USAC articulated two grounds for denying the appeal. First, USAC denied the appeal as untimely filed. In its appeal to the Commission, Big River offers no facts to counter USAC's conclusion regarding the timeliness of its appeal to USAC, or circumstances that would explain the late filing.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4354A2.txt
  • Section 253 of the Communications Act 06/30/09 3060-0862 Handling Confidential Information 06/30/08 3060-0863 Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) 04/30/09 3060-0865 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Universal Licensing System Recordkeeping and Third-Party Disclosure Requirements 07/31/10 3060-0874 FCC 475B, FCC 2000 Series 09/30/10 3060-0876 Sec. 54.703 and Secs. 54.719, 54.720, 54.721, 54.722, 54.723, 54.724 and 54.725 09/30/09 3060-0881 Sec. 95.861 09/30/08 3060-0882 Sec. 95.833 01/31/09 3060-0888 Secs. 76.7, 76.9, 76.61, 76.914, 76.1003, 76.1302, and 76.1513 05/31/08 3060-0894 Secs. 54.313 and 54.316 and Certification Letter Accounting for Receipt of Federal Support and Rate Comparability Review and Certification 09/30/10 3060-0895 FCC 502 05/31/10 3060-0896 Broadcast Auction Form Exhibits 12/31/08 3060-0900 Compatibility of Wireless Services with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4971A1.txt
  • F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Waiver of the Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest. Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Although certain Petitioners have requested the Bureau review the decision of the Administrator under section 54.723 of the Commission's rules, we find the appropriate procedural relief is to waive the filing deadline. 47 C.F.R. §§1.3, 54.722(a); see also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Sagebrush Cellular, Inc., Petition for Waiver of Filing Deadline in 47 C.F.R. Sections 54.307(d), 54.314(a) and 54.904(d), Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15139 (Aug. 13, 2007) (Action in which the Bureau waived a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4973A1.txt
  • dated Nov. 2, 2005, at 1 (Minnesota OET Application 460616 Request for Review); Letter from Cheryle Zollman, Union Baker Education Service District, to Federal Communications Commission, dated Jan. 4, 2007, at 1 (Union Baker Request for Review). The Wireline Competition Bureau must conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decision issued by the Administrator. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See AES Request for Review at 2; Grand River Request for Review at 1; Midwestern Intermediate Request for Revew at 1; and YCS Request for Review at 2; see also South Carolina CIO Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5990-91, para. 8. USAC also denied the application of Illinois Century Network because its LOAs were dated after its FCC Form 471
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1514A1.txt
  • filing because it was made after the 45-day revision window deadline of December 15, 2007. Aventure argues that it will be severely harmed absent relief because the FCC Form 499-A true-up process will not provide redress until mid-2009. discussion The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to consider petitions for review of decisions by USAC. Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the Bureau shall conduct a de novo review. We find that Aventure has demonstrated good cause to grant its request for relief. In the 2002 Interim Contribution Methodology Order, the Commission established a 45-day period within which carriers may revise their FCC Forms 499-Q. This deadline is essential to eliminate carriers' abilities to revise
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1971A1.txt
  • revenue reported on the company's 2006 FCC Form 499-A, which resulted in a non-de minimis status for the company. See id. at Attach., 2. See id. at 3-4. See id. at 5. See id. at 4. The Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to consider requests for review of USAC decisions. 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). Section 54.723 of the Commission's rules specifies that the Bureau shall conduct a de novo review. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See supra para. 4. Id. Id. For these reasons, we also find that USAC improperly characterized the Commission's authority as permissive in determining AMTS providers' contribution obligations. See Maritime Request for Review at Attach., 1-2. Universal Service First Report and Order, 12
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2242A1.txt
  • FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Waiver of the Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest. Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. Although certain petitioners have requested that the Bureau review USAC's decision under section 54.723 of the Commission's rules, we find the appropriate procedural relief is to waive the filing deadline. 47 C.F.R. §§1.3, 54.722(a). See 2007 499-A Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21506, para. 3. See Appendix. (last visited Oct. 7, 2008). (last visited Oct. 7, 2008). Request for Review by Atlantic Digital, Inc. of Decision of Universal Service Administrator, CC Docket No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2364A1.txt
  • submitted a bid in response to Grand Rapids' FCC Form 470 # 930410000393393 on January 10, 2002. Id. Id. at Exhibit F. Id. at 3. Id. at Exhibits I and J. Id. at 3. The service agreement provided a 60-month term and a service start date of June 23, 2003. Id. Id. Id. at 3-4, 6. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See 47 C.F.R. §54.504(c); 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. 1 (2006) (Bishop Perry Order). The Commission may waive any provision of its rules on its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2382A1.txt
  • 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). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2387A1.txt
  • Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02-6 (dated Nov. 18, 2005); Letter from Larry Scaletta, Thornton Township High School District 205, to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (dated Jan. 13, 2006); Letter from Richard Bocanegra, Edgewood Independent School District, to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (dated Nov. 16, 2007) (collectively, Requests for Review). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723; infra Appendix. We estimate that the appeals granted in this order involve applications for approximately $3.2 million in funding. 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.txt
  • implementing statutory requirements for the Universal Service support mechanism, these rules provide the framework and requirements for the review of decisions issued by the Administrator. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 254. Section Number and Title: 54.719 Parties permitted to seek review of Administrator decisions. 54.720 Filing deadlines. 54.721 General filing requirements. 54.722 Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission. 54.723 Standard of review. 54.724 Time periods for Commission approval of Administrator decisions. 54.725 Universal service disbursements during pendency of a request for review and Administrator decision. PART 61-TARIFFS SUBPART E-GENERAL RULES FOR DOMINANT CARRIERS Brief Description: The Part 61 rules are designed to implement the provisions of sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1514A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. We note also that USAC has provided us with the tracking receipt associated with the filing, showing that it was not dropped off to Federal Express in Peoria until March 30, 2009. We note that even if USAC found that a petitioner met the good-cause standard, we must address that question de novo. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723(a). Furthermore, we disagree with any argument that late revisions filed before the FCC Form 499-A One-Year Deadline Order only needed to explain the ``cause'' of the delay rather than show the ``good cause'' required for waiver of a deadline. If a filer only needed to explain the reason for the revision without reference to the Commission's good cause standard, any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2071A1.txt
  • Commission. See Municipal Request for Review. In the interest of administrative efficiency, USAC transmitted the appeal directly to the Commission rather than returning the appeal to the applicant. We therefore consider its appeal as filed with the Commission. See Appendix. The Bureau shall conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See Dutchess ADL; Erie ADL; Georgia ADL; Hacienda ADLs; MSC ADL; Oregon FCDL. With regard to Dutchess's application, USAC found that Dutchess did not have evidence of authority for one consortium member, Ulster County BOCES. See Dutchess ADL. See Dutchess Request for Review at 8-9, Appendices 2 and 4. See also Letter from Juliann Troiano, Dutchess BOCES, and Ari Fitzgerald,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-751A1.txt
  • strict adherence to the general rule. Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166; accord NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (stating that in addition to the public interest being well-served, there must also be a sufficiently ``unique situation'' to grant waiver). Although some of the petitioners have requested that the Bureau review USAC's decision under section 54.723 of the Commission's rules, we find the appropriate procedural relief is a request to waive the filing deadline. Compare 47 C.F.R. §§1.3 with 54.723(a). See 47 C.F.R. § 54.713. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.706, 54.711, and 54.713 (requiring all telecommunications carriers providing interstate telecommunications services and certain other providers of interstate service to file the annual FCC Form 499-A and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1039A1.txt
  • District (dated July 7, 2009). See Request for Review. See id. at 1. See E-mail from Chris Wittrien, USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Silverio Pena, Ramirez Common School District (dated Nov. 14, 2008) (Selective Review Information Request). Id. Id. The Bureau must conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See Ramirez FCC Form 470 (requesting, for example, local and long distance telecommunications service, high speed internet access connection, email, and webhosting). See Selective Review Information Request. See Approach Learning Order, 23 FCC Rcd 15510 (concluding that petitioners did not violate the Commission's competitive bidding rules by failing to correctly indicate on their FCC Forms 470 whether they had issued
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1087A1.txt
  • Review; Yonkers Request for Review.) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.25 283 Tm 60 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (28) Tj 1 0 0 1 93.35 278.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 122.6 277 Tm 71 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 129.8 278.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 257.049 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (295ee) Tj 1 0 0 1 96.95 257.299 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 138.95 255.399 Tm 76 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 146.4 257.299 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.511.) Tj 1 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1368A1.txt
  • Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (The Bureau must conduct a) Tj 1 0 0 1 193.65 216.25 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de novo) Tj 1 0 0 1 227.5 215.799 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 72 204.75 Tm 96 Tz (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 187.699 Tm 62 Tz (40) Tj 1 0 0 1 80.6 183.149 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (See) Tj 1 0 0 1 97.2 183.149 Tm 98 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 151.9 183.149 Tm /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (54.503, 54.511; Ysleta Order,) Tj 1 0 0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1369A1.txt
  • 82.05 93.849 Tm 99 Tz (The Bureau must conduct a) Tj 1 0 0 1 194.85 93.849 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de novo) Tj 1 0 0 1 228.95 94.099 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued byUSAC. 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 82.099 Tm 96 Tz (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 305 38 Tm 101 Tz (4) Tj ET endstream endobj 48 0 obj 6236 endobj 43 0 obj << /Dest [ 38 0 R /XYZ 0 792 null ] /Next 51 0 R /Parent 4 0 R /Prev 31 0 R /Title (page 5) >> endobj 52 0 obj << /BitsPerComponent 1 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray /DecodeParms
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1370A1.txt
  • 93.649 Tm 101 Tz (° The Bureau must conduct a) Tj 1 0 0 1 193.4 93.649 Tm 96 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de novo) Tj 1 0 0 1 227.25 93.399 Tm 101 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued byUSAC. 47 C.F.R. §) Tj 1 0 0 1 71.5 82.099 Tm 96 Tz (54.723.) Tj 1 0 0 1 303.6 37.25 Tm 100 Tz (4) Tj ET endstream endobj 44 0 obj 5963 endobj 39 0 obj << /Dest [ 34 0 R /XYZ 0 792 null ] /Next 47 0 R /Parent 4 0 R /Prev 31 0 R /Title (page 5) >> endobj 48 0 obj << /BitsPerComponent 1 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray /DecodeParms
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1554A1.txt
  • Tm 79 Tz /OPBaseFont2 10 Tf (de nOVO) Tj 1 0 0 1 228.2 93.649 Tm 100 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R.) Tj 1 0 0 1 515 91.5 Tm 72 Tz /OPBaseFont0 10 Tf (§) Tj 1 0 0 1 73.4 82.099 Tm 95 Tz /OPBaseFont1 10 Tf (54.723.) Tj ET endstream endobj 44 0 obj 5801 endobj 37 0 obj << /Dest [ 32 0 R /XYZ 0 792 null ] /Next 47 0 R /Parent 4 0 R /Prev 23 0 R /Title (page 4) >> endobj 48 0 obj << /BitsPerComponent 1 /ColorSpace /DeviceGray /DecodeParms << /Columns 2550 /K -1 >> /Filter /CCITTFaxDecode /Height 3300 /Length
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1656A1.txt
  • Columbia has adopted the U.C.C.'s requirements for contract formation. See D.C. Code § 28:2-201 (2001); Request for Review at 7. Request for Review at 8 (citing Andersen v. Cross, 527 N.E. 2d 1098 (Ill. App. 1988) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that performance under the agreement can serve as a substitute for a writing). Id. at 1. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. We estimate that the appeal granted in this order involves applications for approximately $426,000 in funding. 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 Second Quarter 2011 (Jan. 31, 2011). We thus determine that the action we take today
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1979A1.txt
  • assigned 20 points to technical solution, multiplied by a weighted value of 4; it assigned 16 points to cost, multiplied by a weighted value of five. Id. at Attachment 3. See id. See supra n. 25. See Request for Review. The Bureau must conduct a de novo review of requests for review of decisions issued by USAC. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9029, para. 480. See supra n.16. See supra n. 25. See COMAD. (continued....) ¦ µ ¸ Ý Þ æ ¦ µ „ ! ¥ † †
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-723A1.txt
  • pending completion of its review of Killeen, Compton, and Meridian's underlying applications on remand. See Benson FCDL; Chesterfield FCDL; St. Cecilia FCDL; Florence FCDL; Galena Park FCDL; Goose Creek FCDL; Allendale FCDL; Fatima FCDL; Hmong FCDL; Irving 2005 FCDL; Irving 2006 FCDL; Killeen FCDL; Lee County FCDL; Meridian COMAD; Richland FCDL; Compton FCDL; Point Pleasant FCDL. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723 (setting forth the Wireline Competition Bureau's obligation to conduct a de novo review of appeals of decisions made by USAC). Allendale considered five criteria, including cost, which was given the highest weight. In order to break a tie between two vendors receiving the same rating, however, Allendale re-evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each vendor's bid, which included a review of whether
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-196A1.txt
  • (2) service level agreement- 200 points; (3) example project- 100 points; (4) customer references- 100 points; (5) vendor summary- 100 points; (6) E-rate clauses- 100 points; and (7) scalability of solution- 100 points.) Marana Request for Review at 2. Id. at 2-3. Id. at 3. Id. at 3, 5. Id. at 5. Id. at 6. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.511, 54.723. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.503(c). Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9076, para. 480 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) (Universal Service First Report and Order). See also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-747A1.txt
  • Nov. 20, 2001) (Birmingham FCC Form 470). See FCC Form 471, Birmingham City Schools (filed Jan. 16, 2002) (Birmingham FCC Form 471). (regarding the Selective Review process) (last visited June 7, 2012). Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Kenneth Wasmund, Birmingham City Schools (dated Dec. 22, 2003) (USAC Decision on Appeal). See Request for Review. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723 (requiring the Wireline Competition Bureau to conduct a de novo review of appeals of decisions made by USAC). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504, 54.511 (2002), amended by 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.503, 54.504, 54.511 (2011). We estimate that the appeal granted in this order involves funding requests for approximately $1.9 million in funding for FY 2002. We note that USAC has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
  • Competition Bureau or the Commission. (a) Requests for review of Administrator decisions that are submitted to the Federal Communications Commission shall be considered and acted upon by the Wireline Competition Bureau; provided, however, that requests for review that raise novel questions of fact, law or policy shall be considered by the full Commission. * * * * * 97. Section 54.723 is revised to read as follows: § 54.723 Standard of review. (a) The Wireline Competition Bureau shall conduct de novo review of request for review of decisions issue by the Administrator. (b) The Federal Communications Commission shall conduct de novo review of requests for review of decisions by the Administrator that involve novel questions of fact, law, or policy; provided,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-313A1.txt
  • at 6-7. Id. at 8. Id. at 9-10. Id at 10. See Ysleta Request for Review; IBM Request for Review. As set forth in the Appendix, the eight other schools also timely filed Requests for Review. All of the Requests for Review involve schools that applied as eligible for 90 percent discounts under our discount matrix. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. Id. The factual situations of the similarly situated applicants are set out in the Appendix. See Appendix B, infra. See section IV, infra. To the extent an applicant proceeded to take service, particularly telecommunications services or Internet access, notwithstanding SLD's denial of discounts, we do not and will not provide funding to pay for such services. See para. 75, infra.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-181A1.txt
  • discount paid, and the providers received the discount payment from the fund. They also provided the discounted service in close approximation to the time recovery was sought by the Commission. These factual distinctions also show that there is no constitutional due process violation. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719. The standard of review such an appeal is de novo. 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. 47 U.S.C. § 503. See Commitment Adjustment Implementation Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 22980-81. . The role of the Good Samaritan is simply to receive the BEAR payment from USAC and pass the reimbursement through to the applicant. USTA Petition. See United States v. Wurts, 303 US 414. 415 (1938); Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 947
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-190A1.txt
  • of funds. We also emphasize that any party aggrieved by any action by the Bureau is, of course, free to seek review by this Commission, pursuant to section 1.115 and commit that we will address any such appeal within six months. Moreover, any action by USAC implementing direction from the Bureau is subject to full Commission review pursuant to section 54.723(b). The Managing Director is the agency' designated follow-up official. Pursuant to the Commission's Audit Follow-up Directive, that office ensures that systems for audit follow-up and resolution are documented and in place, that timely responses are made to all audit reports, and that corrective actions are taken. We clarify that the Office of Managing Director remains the agency's audit follow-up official,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-15A1.txt
  • at 153, where the Court observed that ``[t]he objects sought merely must have been `compiled' when the Government invokes the Exemption.'' AFR at 1, 2. 47 C.F.R. § 54.701. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15810. See id., 19 FCC Rcd at 15808, 15809, 15811, 15817 & n.49, 15819, 15830 and 15835. 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.722 and 54.723. See Fifth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 15809 and 15835. See, e.g., Burka v. Dep't of Health & Human Svcs, 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finding data tapes created and possessed by a contractor to be agency records because of extensive supervision exercised by agency which evidenced ``constructive control''). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). AFR at 1.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-175A1.txt
  • in Appendix A, effective thirty (30) days after the publication of this report and order in the Federal Register. 119. IT IS FURTHER 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 54.723(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3 and 54.722(a), that the Petition for Clarification or Waiver filed by E-rate Central, as identified in paragraph 84 herein, IS DISMISSED. 120. IT IS FURTHER 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,