********************************************************    
                                                NOTICE
     ********************************************************
                                               
                       This document was converted from
                WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
                                               
    Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
                  will not show up in this text version.
                                               
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
     original document will not show up in this text version.
                                               
           Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
               will not be preserved in the text version.
                                               
           If you need the complete document, download the
  WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
                                               
*****************************************************************
                                                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of

Request for Review 
of the Decision of the
Universal Service Administrator by

Arizona Call-A-Teen Center
Phoenix, Arizona

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service

Changes to the Board of Directors of the
National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)






SLD-113535


CC Docket No. 96-45


CC Docket No. 97-21


                             ORDER

   Adopted:  May 12, 2000               Released:  May 15, 2000

By the Common Carrier Bureau:

1.     The Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) has under consideration a Letter of Appeal
filed by Arizona Call-A-Teen Center (Call-A-Teen), of Phoenix, Arizona, on February 14, 2000. 
Call-A-Teen seeks review of a funding commitment decision by the Schools and Libraries
Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company pursuant to a funding request
for dedicated services.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny Call-A-Teen's appeal.
2.      Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, eligible
schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries, may apply for
discounts for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections.  
Schools and libraries must apply for support each funding year.  Initially, the schools and
libraries support mechanism operated on a calendar-year basis, but, in the Fifth Reconsideration
Order, the Commission concluded that a fiscal-year program, running from July 1 to June 30,
would better suit schools and libraries.  To ensure a smooth transition from a calendar-year to a
fiscal-year, Year 1 ran for eighteen months, from January 1, 1998, to June 30, 1999.  Year 2
began July 1, 1999, and will end June 30, 2000.
3.     In order to receive discounts on eligible services, the Commission's rules require that
an applicant submit to the Administrator a completed FCC Form 470, in which the applicant sets
forth the school's technological needs and the services for which it seeks discounts.  Once the
school has complied with the Commission's competitive bidding requirements and signed a
contract for the eligible services, it must file an FCC Form 471 application to notify the
Administrator of the services that have been ordered, the carrier with whom the school has
signed the contract, and an estimate of funds needed to cover the discounts to be given for
eligible services.  This information is generally provided in Block 5 of FCC Form 471.  Among
other information, Block 5 requires the applicant to indicate the date the contract was awarded,
the expiration date of the contract, the service start date, the estimated monthly pre-discount cost,
the estimated total annual prediscount cost, and the percentage discount for which the school is
qualified pursuant to the discount matrix.  
4.     At issue here is the amount of support awarded to Call-A-Teen for the Year 2 funding
year, which began July 1, 1999, and will end on June 30, 2000.  In its Form 471, Call-A-Teen
indicated that it would receive services for an eight-month period, beginning April 1999 and
ending December 1999, pursuant to a contract signed on February 1, 1999.  The cost of the
services included a one-time charge of $750 and monthly charges of $850.  Because the Year 2
funding year started on July 1, 1999, and Call-A-Teen's contract for services expired on
December 1, 1999, Call-A-Teen indicated on its Form 471 that its total prediscount cost would
be $5850.  On April 23, 1999, SLD issued to Call-A-Teen a Receipt Acknowledgement Letter
and noted that the services for which Call-A-Teen requested support had an annual prediscounted
cost of $10,950.  SLD issued a Funding Commitment Decision Letter on July 8, 1999, awarding
support to Call-A-Teen in the amount of $5850, based only on services received for a six-month
period from July to December of 1999.
5.     Call-A-Teen now requests that the Commission direct SLD to award it support for the
services it has received, and will receive, from January 1 to June 30, 2000, i.e., the remainder of
the Year 2 funding period.   Call-A-Teen admits that it requested support in Year 2 only for a
six-month period beginning July 1.  Call-A-Teen states, however, that it mistakenly believed
that Year 2, and the Year 2 application that it filed, corresponded to the 1999 calendar year, and
not for the period of July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000. Call-A-Teen also argues that SLD's
acknowledgement, in the Receipt Acknowledgement Letter, that the services for which support
was requested had an estimated annual prediscounted cost of $10,950 indicates that it should
have been granted support based on that amount.
6.     We find no basis upon which to grant Call-A-Teen's request.  The Commission
changed the funding year for the schools and libraries mechanism from a calendar-year to a
fiscal-year more than eight months before Call-A-Teen entered into a contract with its service
provider.  After release of the Fifth Reconsideration Order, SLD posted to its website
information regarding the impact of the order on applicants requesting support.  Moreover, the
Year 2 Form 471 submitted via the Internet to SLD by Call-A-Teen clearly indicated in Block 1
a funding year of July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000.   In light of the thousands of applications that
SLD reviews and processes each funding year, it is administratively necessary to place on the
applicant the responsibility of understanding all relevant program rules and procedures.  Call-A-
Teen's misunderstanding of program rules provides no basis for deviating from the
Commission's policy of placing on the applicant the responsibility for understanding program
rules and procedures.  Similarly, the estimated prediscount amount reported in the Receipt
Acknowledgement Letter does not represent a funding commitment.  The amount reported in the
Receipt Acknowledgement Letter is based only on a review of the one-time and monthly costs
associated with the support requested, assuming twelve months of service, and does not include
other factors, such as the length of the contract for which support is requested.   Because SLD
correctly determined the funding commitment based on the materials submitted by Call-A-Teen,
Call-A-Teen's request for review is denied.
7.     ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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),
that the Letter of Appeal filed February 14, 2000, by Arizona Call-A-Teen Center, Phoenix,
Arizona, IS DENIED.
                              


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
     


                              Carol E. Mattey
                              Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau