News of the Week

Funding Status

The SLD announced that the FY 2013 Form 471 application window will open at noon (EST) on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 — i.e., 12-12-12 @ 12 — and will close at 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, March 14, 2013. The last possible day to file a valid Form 470 for FY 2013 is February 14, 2013 — but please don't wait that long to do so (because there are better things to do on Valentine's Day).

No funding waves for FY 2010, FY 2011, or FY 2012 are planned for this Thanksgiving week.

SLD Fall Training – Changes and Corrections

This is the last in a series of articles reviewing the training materials presented by the SLD in this fall's regional training sessions which concluded November 7th in Los Angeles. The SLD's presentation on Changes and Corrections discusses what changes can be made, and under what circumstances, to forms, services or service providers, and certain deadlines. The key points are:

1. Only minor changes, such as contact information, may be made to a Form 470. Changes to requirements, such as new services and a significant change in scope, require a new Form 470 (entailing a new 28-day posting period).
2. Changes to a Form 471 may be made up until a Funding Commitment Decision Letter is issued, but are best made soon after the receipt of a Receipt Acknowledgment Letter ("RAL"). Form 471 changes may be made only to correct "Ministerial and Clerical" ("M&C") errors, which are tightly defined and documented.
3. There are two varieties of allowable SPIN changes. A "Corrective SPIN Change," used  when the underlying service provider does not change, requires only a simple request. However, if an applicant is actually changing to a new service provider, an "Operational SPIN Change" is required. As of FY 2011, an Operational SPIN Change can be made only if there is a valid reason (e.g., breach of contract) and if the new service provider was the runner up provider in the bid assessment process.
4. Service substitutions are required if changes are needed to the specific services or products approved for funding. The substituted service must provide similar functionality, and must be requested by the last day to receive service.
5. Service delivery extensions apply only to non-recurring services for which the last day to receive service is normally September 30th of the following funding year. Under certain circumstances, such as late funding, a service deadline will be extended automatically for an additional year. In the event of specific installation delays, a service deadline extension may be requested (but must be submitted by the last day to receive service).
6. Invoice deadline extensions may be requested as necessary, and are generally approved as a matter of course for any valid reason if filed within 120 days of the previous deadline. Note that as a result of Hurricane Sandy, the invoice deadline for FY 2011 recurring services, which had been October 29, 2012, has been extended until January 28, 2013.

Additional training material:

In addition to its presentation slides, the SLD provided the following three guides in its training packages:

• Acronym List
• Applicant Guide to Success
• Samples and Examples

E-Rate Updates and Reminders

FCC FAQ on CIPA:

The FCC released a FAQ on CIPA (DA 12-1836) addressing three issues related to the new CIPA requirement for schools to educate their students about appropriate online behavior. The guidance clarifies the following:

1. Internet safety policies need to specify that students will be educated, but do not need to provide details about the curriculum. Records on the implementation of the educational policy, however, should be maintained.
2. The language of the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act does not require annual training, but does suggest "some form of regular training."  The FCC again stresses the need to retain documentation on the frequency of training.
3. "Schools are not required to provide education about appropriate online behavior to very young students who are not yet using the Internet in school" (e.g., pre-K students).

With respect to all three issues, however, the FCC stresses the need to retain documentation on the implementation of the educational policy including the frequency of training and the students that have received training. "To the extent a school is aware that some students have missed the scheduled training, the school should take reasonable steps to provide a make-up training or otherwise provide the relevant material to those students."

Recognizing that there are some parochial schools that do not permit in-school Internet access to students of any age, we would caution as follows:

1. CIPA compliance is still required if Internet service for the staff is being funded by E-rate. The Internet safety policy and filtering requirements apply to all school users.
2. The educational exemption guidance provided by the FCC specifically refers to "very young" non-users. Arguably, the same exemption would apply to older students precluded from using the Internet in school, but this is an argument that could hold up funding. Since older students might be using the Internet outside of school, we would urge all schools, as a matter of policy, to provide education on appropriate online behavior.

Although last week's FAQ provides some useful guidance, we were disappointed that it did not address the more important issues, which the FCC has promised, dealing with the CIPA requirements for mobile devices, be they student- or patron-owned devices (often referred to as "bring your own devices" or "BYOD") used on-campus, or school- or library-owned devices used off-campus.

Web Hosting Eligibility Issues:

In at least two conference calls last week, the SLD provided additional, albeit informal, guidance on the eligibility of Web hosting. The guidance was meant to address the profusion of claims by various providers of Web-based applications that all, or a portion, of their service charges would be eligible for E-rate discounts. The SLD stressed that E-rate funding was eligible only for providing hosting of an applicant's Web site. To the extent that other applications were being provided, service charges would have to be allocated out. More importantly, other Web-based applications, not being provided as a part of the applicant's own Web site, are entirely ineligible.

The SLD promised to provide further and more complete guidance on Web hosting eligibility in a forthcoming weekly News Brief.

FCC Appeal Decisions Watch:

The FCC published one case-specific appeal decision last week (DA 12-1795) involving invoicing.  The applicant, Atlanta Public Schools, had been awarded funding in FY 2002 for a telecom project involving both recurring and non-recurring service charges. During PIA review, a portion — but apparently not all — of the non-recurring services were determined to be recurring services. Reportedly without full disclosure in the FCDL, USAC had reclassified all charges as recurring, and subsequently denied an invoice for the remaining non-recurring services. The FCC remanded the application and invoice back to USAC for further consideration. The case illustrates the importance of carefully analyzing any funding decision not classified as "FRN approved as submitted."

Problems with the SLD's 2-in-5 Tool:

The SLD acknowledged problems with its 2-in-5 Tool for Internal Connections which is not always displaying updated funding data. Until the problem is fixed — which the SLD hopes to be soon — applicants planning to seek Internal Connections funding for FY 2013 should independently verify 2-in-5 eligibility of any entity having received such funding in earlier years.

Schools and Libraries News Brief Dated November 16 – Technology Plan and Form 470

The SLD News Brief for November 16, 2012 discusses the relationship between a technology plan and a Form 470. Although technology plans are now required only for Priority 2 services, a portion of the discussion dealing with the scope of a Form 470 is applicable to all applicants. The News Brief provides answers to the following questions:

1. What is the relationship between the technology plan and the Form 470?
2. How do I avoid and overly broad Form 470?
3. How long and how detailed should my technology plan and Form 470 be?
4. What effect should my technology plan needs assessment have on my Form 470?
5. How specific should I be about the scope of my project?
6. What effects could minor or major changes to my technology plan have on a Form 470 I already filed?