Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Spokane School District 81, Spokane, WA

Download Options

Released: July 30, 2013

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1673

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
Petition for Reconsideration by
)
)
Spokane School District 81
)
SLD No. 514942
Spokane, WA
)
)
Schools and Libraries Universal Service
)
CC Docket No. 02-6
Support Mechanism
)

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Adopted: July 30, 2013

Released: July 30, 2013

By the Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau:
1.
Consistent with precedent,1 we dismiss a petition for reconsideration filed by Spokane
School District 81 (Spokane)2 seeking review of our Spokane Order.3 The Spokane Order affirmed the
decision of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to rescind Spokane's funding
commitments under the E-rate program (more formally known as the schools and libraries universal
service support program) for funding year 2006. In its decision, USAC found that Spokane violated the


1 See Petitions for Reconsideration by Lake Pend Oreille School District et al.; Schools and Libraries Universal
Service Support Mechanism
, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 1103 (Wireline Comp.
Bur. 2013) (Lake Pend Oreille Order) (dismissing petitions for reconsideration because the petitioners relied on
arguments that had been fully considered and rejected by the Commission within the same proceeding). See also
Requests for Review of a Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Riverdale Unified School District and
Cherokee County School District; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism
, CC Docket No. 02-
6, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 11207 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2011); Request for Review of a Decision of the Universal
Service Administrator by Ramirez Common School District; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support
Mechanism
, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 8430 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2011); Request for Review of a
Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Coahoma County School District; Schools and Libraries
Universal Service Support Mechanism
, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 11201 (Wireline Comp. Bur.
2011); Request for Review of a Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Cascade School District #422;
Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism
, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 6865
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2011) (all explaining that an applicant must describe with specificity the services it is seeking
to purchase on its FCC Form 470 or indicate on the form that it has a request for proposal (RFP) available providing
detail about the requested services).
2 See Letter from Clay Gehring, Spokane School District 81, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02-6 (filed May 30, 2013) (regarding funding year 2006 FCC Form
471 application number 514942, funding request numbers (FRN) 1453311, 1452858, 1453207, 1453383, 1453399,
and 1453426) (Petition for Reconsideration).
3 See Request for Review of a Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Spokane School District 81;
Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism,
CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 6023
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013) (Spokane Order). The Bureau has the authority to act on petitions requesting
reconsideration of final actions taken pursuant to delegated authority. 47 C.F.R. 1.106(a)(l).

Federal Communications Commission

DA 13-1673

Commission's competitive bidding requirements by indicating on its FCC Form 470 that an RFP did not
exist when an RFP was, in fact, issued.4 Spokane sought review of USAC's decision, arguing that this
omission was an administrative error and did not interfere with its competitive bidding process.5 Based
upon our review of the record, we affirmed USAC's decision and denied Spokane's request for review.6
2.
In seeking reconsideration of our decision, Spokane merely reiterates its previous assertion
that issuance of the RFP without notice on the FCC Form 470 "did not unduly interfere with the
competitive bidding process or artificially constrict the potential pool of applicants [because] the entire
RFP was sent to 17 vendors across the nation thereby creating a substantial pool of potential vendors."7
We fully considered and rejected Spokane's arguments in our initial review of its appeal of USAC's
decision.8 Therefore, we dismiss Spokane's petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 1.106(p)(3) of
the Commission's rules, which allows the Bureau to dismiss or deny petitions for reconsideration that rely
on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected by the Commission within the same
proceeding.9
3.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4
and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154 and 254, and sections
0.91, 0.291, 1.106 and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, 1.106 and
54.722(a), that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Spokane School District 81 on May 30, 2013, IS
DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kimberly A. Scardino
Chief
Telecommunications Access Policy Division
Wireline Competition Bureau


4 See Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Michelle Huss, Spokane School District 81 (dated Sept.
4, 2012) (regarding FCC Form 471 application number 514942, FRNs 1453311, 1452858, 1453207, 1453383,
1453399, and 1453426).
5 See Letter from Diane Boudreau, Spokane School District 81, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02-6 (filed Oct. 1, 2012) (regarding funding year 2006 FCC Form
471 application number 514942, FRNs 1453311, 1452858, 1453207, 1453383, 1453399, and 1453426) (Request for
Review). 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).
6 See Spokane Order.
7 Compare Petition for Reconsideration ("We do not believe failure to indicate the existence of an RFP for internal
connections on our Form 470 unduly interfered with the competitive bidding process....") with Request for Review
("We made a clerical error and failed to place a checkmark on Item 11a that we were planning to release an RFP,
although we intended to do so. In releasing the RFP, we followed E-rate rules and do not believe this prevented us
from conducting a competitive bidding process.").
8 See Spokane Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 6024, para. 3.
9 See 47 C.F.R. 1.106(p)(3).
2

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.