Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 1 No. 18-9563 (and other cases listed inside cover) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SPRINT CORPORATION, Petitioner, CITY OF NEW YORK, Intervenor - Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, CITY OF BOWIE, MARYLAND, et al., Intervenors - Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. General Counsel David M. Gossett Deputy General Counsel Jacob M. Lewis Associate General Counsel Makan Delrahim Scott M. Noveck Assistant Attorney General Counsel Robert B. Nicholson FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Adam D. Chandler COMMISSION Attorneys 445 12th Street SW U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Washington, DC 20554 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (202) 418-1740 Washington, DC 20530 fcclitigation@fcc.gov Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 2 [Caption Continued from Front Cover] No. 18-9566 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, et al., Intervenors - Respondents. No. 18-9567 PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, CITY OF NEW YORK, Intervenor - Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, et al., Intervenors - Respondents. Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 3 [Caption Continued from Previous Page] No. 18-9568 THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, et al., Petitioners, CITY OF NEW YORK, Intervenor - Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, CTIA THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, et al., Intervenors - Respondents. No. 18-9571 CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, et al., Petitioners, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA, et al., Intervenors - Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 4 [Caption Continued from Previous Page] No. 18-9572 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, Petitioner, THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, et al., Intervenors - Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 5 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) and the United States of America respectfully oppose the San Jose Petitioners motion to transfer these cases, which seek review of the FCC s Declaratory Ruling and Third Report & Order, Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, --- FCC Rcd. ---, FCC 18-133 (rel. Sept. 27, 2018) (September Order). Under the judicial lottery procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a), the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation designated this Court as the forum to decide any petitions for review of the September Order. San Jose misreads federal law as requiring transfer to the Ninth Circuit after the Judicial Panel randomly assigned all six qualifying petitions, filed in four different circuits, to this Circuit. San Jose insists that these cases must be transferred to the Ninth Circuit because it contends that the September Order is  the same order as the FCC s August Order,1 which has been challenged in the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. That premise 1 Third Report & Order and Declaratory Ruling, Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 7705 (rel. Aug. 3, 2018) (August Order), pets. for review pending, City of Portland v. FCC, No. 18-72689 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2018), and Am. Elec. Power Servs. Corp. v. FCC, No. 18- 14408 (11th Cir. filed Oct. 18, 2018). - 1 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 6 is incorrect: The August Order and the September Order are separate standalone orders that were adopted by separate votes on separate documents at separate times based on differing records (with over 700 additional record submissions for the September Order), and the two orders each address separate and discrete subjects. San Jose also has not shown that transfer is necessary for the convenience of the parties or in the interest of justice. To the contrary, while San Jose and Seattle filed petitions for review in the Ninth Circuit, municipalities located in eleven of twelve regional circuits filed separate petitions in the Fourth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits, belying any argument that the Ninth Circuit is uniquely situated to hear this case. In short, there is no reason why this Court, which often hears cases involving the Communications Act, should transfer the consolidated petitions. The motion to transfer should be denied. 1. The September Order was released on September 27, 2018, and a summary was published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018. See 83 Fed. Reg. 51867. Any party aggrieved by an FCC order may file a petition for review in the federal courts of appeals. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2342(1), 2344; 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). Separate petitions for review of the September - 2 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 7 Order have been filed in the First, Second, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits. See Addendum A (listing petitions). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a), when petitions for review of an FCC order are filed in multiple circuits and date-stamped copies are served on the agency within ten days after issuance of the order, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conducts a judicial lottery to designate one court of appeals, from among those receiving qualifying petitions, in which the record is to be filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(1) (3). All petitions for review challenging that order must then be transferred to the court in which the record is filed. Id. § 2112(a)(5). Petitions qualifying for the judicial lottery were filed in the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, and the Judicial Panel randomly selected this Circuit as the court in which the record is to be filed. See Consolidation Order, In re FCC, MCP No. 155 (J.P.M.L. Nov. 2, 2018). Because the Tenth Circuit has been designated as the court in which the record is to be filed,  [a]ll courts in which proceedings are instituted with respect to the same order  here, the September Order  shall transfer those proceedings to this Court, and this Court thereafter can transfer the petitions to another circuit only  [f]or the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(5). - 3 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 8 Given the Judicial Panel s designation of this Court to review all challenges to the September Order, the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits transferred the petitions initially filed in those circuits to this Court. Separately, other petitions for review of the September Order (that were filed after or did not qualify for the judicial lottery) have been filed in the Fourth,2 Eighth,3 Ninth,4 and D.C. Circuits.5 The FCC has filed unopposed motions to transfer the petitions filed in the Fourth and D.C. Circuits to this Court, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(5), and will soon be moving to transfer the petitions recently filed in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits (which were just received this morning). The Fourth Circuit has already granted the FCC s motion and ordered its case transferred to this Circuit. 2 Montgomery County v. FCC, No. 18-2448 (4th Cir. filed Dec. 5, 2018) (order granting transfer to Tenth Circuit issued December 13, 2018). 3 City of N. Little Rock v. FCC, No. 18-3678 (8th Cir. filed Dec. 14, 2018). 4 City & Cnty. of S.F. v. United States, No. 18-73376 (9th Cir. filed Dec. 14, 2018). 5 AT&T Servs., Inc. v. FCC, No. 18-1294 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 25, 2018); Am. Pub. Power Ass n v. FCC, No. 18-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 15, 2018); City of Austin v. FCC, No. 18-1326 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 11, 2018); City of Eugene v. FCC, No. 18-1330 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 12, 2018). - 4 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 9 2. a. San Jose is incorrect that these cases should be transferred to the Ninth Circuit because the September Order  can be treated as the same order (Mot. 5) as the August Order. Nothing in the orders supports that claim. The two orders are separate, standalone documents. The orders were considered and adopted at separate times indeed, nearly eight weeks apart with the Commissioners casting separate (and differing) votes on each order. Separate documents that are adopted at separate times by separate action are presumed not to be the same order. See, e.g., Far East Conference v. Fed. Mar. Comm n, 337 F.2d 146, 148 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (maritime orders adopted at different times and directed to different trade routes and commodities  cannot be considered the  same order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a) even if the orders are substantially identical); Midwest Video Corp. v. United States, 362 F.2d 259, 260 61 (8th Cir. 1966) (per curiam). The August Order and the September Order likewise do not constitute  the same order because they each address separate and discrete subjects. The August Order addresses federal pole attachment rules under 47 U.S.C. § 224, August Order ¶¶ 13 139, and state and local moratoria on new wireline and wireless infrastructure through explicit or de facto refusals to allow deployment, id. ¶¶ 140 168. The September - 5 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 10 Order, by contrast, does not relate to either state or local moratoria or pole attachment rules, nor does it apply to wireline facilities. Rather, it addresses three discrete subjects in the specific context of small wireless facilities: fees and charges assessed by state and local governments, September Order ¶¶ 43 80; aesthetic requirements and similar issues, id. ¶¶ 81 91; and timelines for state and local authorizations, id. ¶¶ 103 147. The fact that the September Order addresses different subjects from the August Order further supports the conclusion that it is not  the same order under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(5). See Mobil Oil Expl. Co. v. FERC, 814 F.2d 1001, 1003 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (denying motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 2112 where orders were  issued by the same regulatory body under the same statutory authority but addressed different subjects); Midwest, 362 F.2d at 260 61 (denying motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 2112 because  [i]t is apparent that the second order presents issues not raised by the first order and that  jurisdiction to review the first order does not carry with it jurisdiction to review the second order ). This case thus presents the opposite situation from American Electric Power Services Corp. v. FCC, No. 18-14408 (11th Cir.) (AEP), in which the FCC has moved to transfer a challenge to the August Order - 6 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 11 that was filed in the Eleventh Circuit to be consolidated with an earlier challenge to the August Order that was filed in the Ninth Circuit.6 (The Eleventh Circuit has not yet acted on that motion as of this filing.) In that case, the petitions for review in the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits challenged literally  the same order : Each challenged aspects of a single document adopted at a single time by a single vote of the Commission. Here, by contrast, San Jose s petition challenges a different order that was adopted at a separate time in a separate vote on a separate standalone document. b. San Jose insists that these two separate orders must be treated as  the same order because they  are associated with the same dockets [and] arise out of the same administrative record (Mot. 5). But San Jose then concedes in a footnote (Mot. 5 n.2) that the administrative records are not in fact the same, because the record before the Commission when it adopted the August Order necessarily closed upon that order s adoption in early August, whereas the record underlying the September Order did 6 The challenges to the August Order were not filed within the ten-day window for a judicial lottery, so challenges to the August Order must be transferred to the circuit in which the first petition for review was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(1), (5). - 7 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 12 not close until late September. See Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 739 (10th Cir. 1993) (judicial review of an agency decision is  based on the full administrative record that was before [the agency] at the time of the decision ). Contrary to San Jose s representation that the two orders  arise out of the same administrative record (Mot. 5), in the nearly eight weeks between the adoption of the August Order and the adoption of the September Order, interested parties made more than 700 additional submissions to the FCC. See Addendum B (list of additional record submissions). And, indeed, the September Order discusses and relies on numerous letters and other submissions that were submitted to the agency after the release of the August Order, and thus are not part of the record that will be filed with the court reviewing the August Order. See, e.g., September Order nn.246 247, 253, 296. Nor do these two separate orders become  the same order simply because they were cross-filed in the same agency dockets (Mot. 5) an omnibus docket for wireline infrastructure issues and an omnibus docket for wireless infrastructure issues. While the two orders were cross-filed in the same two agency dockets, the lead docket for each order is - 8 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 13 different, reflecting their different subjects.7 In any event, the FCC routinely issues multiple separate orders under a given agency docket, and those separate orders are often reviewed by separate circuits. Here, for example, an earlier order in the same wireless infrastructure docket as the September Order was adopted in March and is currently under review by the D.C. Circuit. See Second Report & Order, Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, --- FCC Rcd. ---, FCC 18-30 (rel. Mar. 30, 2018) (March Order), pets. for review pending, United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Okla. v. FCC, Nos. 18-1129 et al. (D.C. Cir. filed May 9, 2018). If San Jose were correct that separate orders associated with the same agency docket must be treated as  the same order, then it should be seeking transfer to the D.C. Circuit, not the Ninth Circuit but no party takes that position. 7 The August Order addresses subjects that are of similar significance to both traditional wireline and wireless service alike, so the lead docket listed on that order is the wireline docket (WC Docket No. 17-84). The September Order focuses principally on obstacles to wireless infrastructure deployment, so the lead docket listed on that order is the wireless docket (WT Docket No. 17-79). This is also why the two orders each contain sections labeled  Third Report and Order : The August Order is the Third Report and Order in the wireline docket, whereas the September Order is the Third Report and Order in the wireless docket. - 9 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 14 San Jose s claim that the August Order and the September Order are the same order rests (Mot. 4 5) primarily on an unpublished and inapposite D.C. Circuit order concerning challenges to two FCC orders that were adopted on the same day as part of  a single agency undertaking. Bell Atl. Tel. Cos. v. FCC, 1996 WL 734326, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 25, 1996). In deciding to treat those orders as  the same order, the D.C. Circuit addressed the unusual situation where two closely related orders were considered and adopted together based on an identical agency record. That unusual situation is not present here, because the separate orders at issue were considered and adopted separately at separate times and because the record relied on by the September Order contains hundreds of submissions that are not part of the record underlying the August Order.8 8 For similar reasons, San Jose errs (Mot. 5) in citing American Civil Liberties Union v. FCC, 486 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (ACLU). In that case, the court found that challenges to several orders that  represent the staggered implementation of a single, multi-faceted agency undertaking in a  prolonged and complex proceeding should be consolidated because separate review would  result[] in the action of the agency being subjected to fragmentary review by different courts. Id. at 414. There is no prospect of  fragmentary review here, because the two orders address different subjects, nor can the two separate wireless and wireline dockets be characterized as part of a single  prolonged and complex proceeding. - 10 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 15 3. San Jose also briefly argues (Mot. 6 8) for a discretionary transfer  for the convenience of the parties in the interests of justice under the second sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(5), but it has not shown any compelling reason for transfer here. Notably, the array of petitioners challenging the September Order do not even take a uniform view that the Judicial Panel s selection of this Court is inconvenient for the parties; indeed, several petitioners oppose transfer.  The only significant convenience factor which affects petitioners seeking review of rulemaking on an agency record is the convenience of counsel who will brief and argue the petitions, because  [r]eview is confined to the agency record and the parties themselves need not appear in court. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 592 F.2d 693, 697 (3d Cir. 1979). While the San Jose Petitioners are located in the Ninth Circuit, their counsel is based in the District of Columbia. Even more notably, while the Seattle Petitioners are located in the Ninth Circuit, their lead counsel is based in Denver. And the same Denver- based counsel is also lead counsel for a group of intervenors that includes the Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance, an association of 57 - 11 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 16 local government entities throughout Colorado.9 To the extent San Jose contends that the Ninth Circuit would be more convenient simply because some petitioners are located in that circuit, granting its request would needlessly inconvenience the parties and their counsel who are located in this Circuit. Other parties and their counsel are located throughout the country, including other petitioners who sought review in this Court or other circuits. San Jose does not contend that transfer to the Ninth Circuit would appreciably advance the convenience of these other parties, and it may even inconvenience them; indeed, several of these petitioners oppose transfer to the Ninth Circuit. And though San Jose contends that  states and their subdivisions interests are far more affected by this Order than are the interests of other petitioners (Mot. 8), courts have  made clear that  it is inappropriate to compare the relative aggrievement  of parties challenging the order when considering a transfer motion. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 694 F.2d 1289, 1300 9 See City of Bakersfield et al. Motion for Leave to Intervene at 2 n.1, City of Seattle v. FCC, No. 18-9571 (10th Cir. filed Nov. 23, 2018) (describing the Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance and its members). - 12 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 17 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (quoting Liquor Salesmen s Union Local 2 v. NLRB, 664 F.2d 1200, 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). San Jose s preference to challenge the September Order in the Ninth Circuit does not override the operation of the judicial lottery mechanism or deprive other aggrieved parties of their right to seek review in another forum. None of the issues addressed in the September Order are in any way specific to the Ninth Circuit. The September Order established nationwide rules governing the deployment of small wireless facilities across the country. While San Jose and Seattle filed their petitions for review in the Ninth Circuit, other municipalities filed similar petitions in the Fourth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits including a joint petition in the D.C. Circuit filed by municipalities located in eleven of the twelve regional circuits. See City of Austin v. FCC, No. 18-1326 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 11, 2018) (filed on behalf of municipalities in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits). Nor is there any merit to San Jose s claim (Mot. 6-7) that the interest of justice requires that the two orders be heard by the same court to ensure consistent outcomes. Although both orders involve, among other issues, the Commission s interpretation of the  effective - 13 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 18 prohibition language in Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act, they apply that interpretation in wholly distinct contexts. Cf. Mobil Oil, 814 F.2d at 1003 (holding that  [t]hese similarities are not such * * * as to advise or compel a transfer where two orders used the same statutory authority to address different issues). And while the September Order contains a handful of citations to the August Order, it does not rely on the August Order for any of its legal conclusions. Most of these citations appear in string cites as but one of several authorities for a well-established legal proposition; some simply describe actions that the Commission has taken in the past to provide historical background; and yet others distinguish matters addressed in the August Order. That the September Order does not rely on the August Order is underscored by footnotes 79 and 103 of the September Order, in which the Commission acknowledged that several parties have petitioned for agency reconsideration of the August Order and explained that the determinations in the September Order did not require the Commission to resolve the petitions for reconsideration (which remain pending). The Commission thus made clear that the September Order stands on its own, and will continue to stand even if the petitions for reconsideration lead it - 14 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 19 to modify or rescind the August Order. And just as the September Order would stand if the Commission were to reconsider or rescind the August Order, so too the September Order would stand even if a court were to vacate the August Order. There is thus no reason to expect the Ninth Circuit s disposition of challenges to the August Order to require any particular outcome on review of the September Order or vice versa, should this Court decide the challenges to the September Order before the Ninth Circuit acts10 and thus no inconsistency in allowing the two different orders to be reviewed by two different courts. Finally, San Jose suggests (Mot. 7) that this case should be in the Ninth Circuit because it wishes to rely on a prior Ninth Circuit case addressing 47 U.S.C. §§ 253 and 332(c)(7). But it neglects to mention that this Court has also issued a series of decisions interpreting those same statutory provisions. See, e.g., T-Mobile Cent., LLC v. Unified Gov t of Wyandotte Cnty., 546 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 2008); Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2004); RT Commc ns, Inc. v. FCC, 10 The Commission has moved to hold the Ninth Circuit s review of the August Order in abeyance until the agency rules on the petitions for reconsideration of that order. If the Ninth Circuit grants that motion, that would only further diminish any argument for transfer. - 15 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 20 201 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2000). There is thus no reason to think the Ninth Circuit has any greater facility with those statutory provisions than this Court assuming that were even a relevant consideration. Cf. Am. Pub. Gas Ass n v. Fed. Power Comm n, 555 F.2d 852, 857 58 & n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (rejecting similar argument because  [i]mplicit in the argument is a concept of specialized circuits and panels for certain types of cases, a suggestion we have previously rejected ). It would hardly be in the interests of justice to saddle the Ninth Circuit with a sprawling and potentially unmanageable case involving separate Commission decisions relating to pole attachments, infrastructure deployment moratoria, state and local fees, aesthetic requirements, and timelines for state and local authorizations. - 16 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 21 CONCLUSION The motions to transfer should be denied.11 Dated: December 17, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Scott M. Noveck Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. General Counsel David M. Gossett Deputy General Counsel Jacob M. Lewis Associate General Counsel Makan Delrahim Scott M. Noveck Assistant Attorney General Counsel Robert B. Nicholson FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Adam D. Chandler COMMISSION Attorneys 445 12th Street SW U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Washington, DC 20554 950 PENNSYLVANIA Ave. NW (202) 418-1740 Washington, DC 20530 fcclitigation@fcc.gov Counsel for Respondent Counsel for Respondent Federal United States of America Communications Commission 11 The Court has also asked the FCC to  address whether transfer is permissible before the agency record is filed. 11/30/18 Order at 4. In the FCC s view, once the Judicial Panel has issued a consolidation order designating the court in which the record is to be filed, there is no good reason to postpone the disposition of any transfer motions until the record is officially filed. - 17 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 22 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limitation, Typeface Requirements and Type Style Requirements 1. This document complies with the type-volume limit of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A) because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f): & this document contains 3,574 words, or & this document uses a monospaced typeface and contains lines of text. 2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because: & this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2016 in 14-point Century Schoolbook, or & this document has been prepared in a monospaced spaced typeface using with . /s/ Scott M. Noveck Scott M. Noveck Counsel for Respondents - 18 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 23 CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION I hereby certify that with respect to the foregoing document: 1. All required privacy redactions have been made per Tenth Circuit Rule 25.5. 2. If required to file additional hard copies, the ECF submission is an exact copy of those documents. 3. The digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program, Cylance PROTECT Version 2.0.1500.18 (current as of December 17, 2018), and according to the program are free of viruses. /s/ Scott M. Noveck Scott M. Noveck Counsel for Respondents - 19 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 24 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 17, 2018, I caused the foregoing Opposition to Motion to Transfer to be filed with the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit using the electronic CM/ECF system. I further certify that all participants in the case, listed below, are registered CM/ECF users and will be served electronically by the CM/ECF system. /s/ Scott M. Noveck Scott M. Noveck Counsel for Respondents Service List: Christopher J. Wright Henry Weissmann Elizabeth Austin Bonner MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS 350 South Grand Avenue 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 50th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 cwright@wiltshiregrannis.com henry.weissmann@mto.com abonner@hwglaw.com Counsel for Petitioner/Intervenor Counsel for Petitioner/Intervenor Verizon Communications, Inc. Sprint Corporation - 20 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 25 [Service List Continued from Previous Page] Jonathan Meltzer Megan L. Brown MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON Jeremy J. Broggi 1155 F Street, NW, 7th Floor WILEY REIN Washington, DC 20004 1776 K Street, NW jonathan.meltzer@mto.com Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Petitioner/Intervenor mbrown@wileyrein.com Verizon Communications, Inc. jbroggi@wileyrein.com Counsel for Petitioner Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc. Joseph Leonard Van Eaton Gail A Karish BEST BEST & KRIEGER BEST BEST & KRIEGER 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 5300 25th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Los Angeles, CA 90071 joseph.vaneaton@bbklaw.com gail.karish@bbklaw.com Counsel for Petitioners/Intervenors Counsel for Petitioners/Intervenors The City of San Jose, The City of San Jose, California, et al. California, et al. Kenneth S. Fellman Robert Carroll May III KISSINGER & FELLMAN TELECOM LAW FIRM 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive 3570 Camino del Rio North Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900 Suite 102 Denver, CO 80209 San Diego, CA 92108 kfellman@kandf.com tripp@telecomlawfirm.com Counsel for Petitioners City of Counsel for Petitioners Seattle, Washington, et al. and League of Oregon Cities et al. Intervenors City of Coconut and Intervenors City of Creek, Florida, et al. Bakersfield, California, et al. - 21 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 26 [Service List Continued from Previous Page] Michael J. Vigliotta Tillman L Lay Scott Franklin Field Jeffrey Michael Bayne OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1875 Eye St., NW, Suite 700 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Washington, DC 20006 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 tim.lay@spiegelmcd.com mvigliotta@surfcity-hb.org jeffrey.bayne@spiegelmcd.com sfield@surfcity-hb.org Counsel for Intervenors Counsel for Petitioner City of Eugene, Oregon, et al. City of Huntington Beach MacKenzie Fillow Joshua Scott Turner NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT Sara Baxenberg 100 Church Street, Room 6-200 WILEY REIN New York, NY 10007 1776 K Street, NW mfillow@law.nyc.gov Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Intervenor jturner@wileyrein.com City of New York sbaxenberg@wileyrein.com Counsel for Intervenor CTIA The Wireless Association Jennifer P. Bagg Thomas Scott Thompson Susannah J. Larson DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20006-3401 jbagg@hwglaw.com scottthompson@dwt.com slarson@hwglaw.com Counsel for Intervenor Wireless Counsel for Intervenor Infrastructure Association Competitive Carriers Association - 22 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 27 [Service List Continued from Previous Page] Robert Nicholson Adam D. Chandler U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 robert.nicholson@usdoj.gov adam.chandler@usdoj.gov Counsel for Respondent United States of America - 23 - Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 28 ADDENDUM A Petitions for Review of the September Order Tenth Circuit: " Sprint Corp. v. FCC, No. 18-9563 (10th Cir. filed Oct. 25, 2018) " Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, No. 18-9566 (10th Cir. docketed Nov. 2, 2018) (originally filed Oct. 25, 2018) " Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. FCC, No. 18-9567 (10th Cir. docketed Nov. 5, 2018) (originally filed Oct. 25, 2018) " City of San Jose v. FCC, No. 18-9568 (10th Cir. docketed Nov. 7, 2018) (originally filed Oct. 24, 2018) " City of Seattle v. FCC, No. 18-9571 (10th Cir. docketed Nov. 7, 2018) (originally filed Oct. 24, 2018) " City of Huntington Beach v. FCC, No. 18-9572 (10th Cir. docketed Nov. 7, 2018) (originally filed Oct. 24, 2018) Fourth Circuit: " Montgomery County v. FCC, No. 18-2448 (4th Cir. filed Dec. 5, 2018) (order granting transfer to the Tenth Circuit issued December 13, 2018) Eighth Circuit: " City of North Little Rock v. FCC, No. 18-3678 (8th Cir. filed Dec. 14, 2018) (motion to transfer to the Tenth Circuit to be filed) Ninth Circuit: " City & County of San Francisco v. United States, No. 18-73376 (9th Cir. filed Dec. 14, 2018) (motion to transfer to the Tenth Circuit to be filed) Add. 1 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 29 D.C. Circuit: " AT&T Services, Inc. v. FCC, No. 18-1294 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 25, 2018) (unopposed motion to transfer to the Tenth Circuit filed November 13, 2018) " American Public Power Ass n v. FCC, No. 18-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 15, 2018) (consolidated with No. 18-1294 and subject to pending motion to transfer to the Tenth Circuit) " City of Austin v. FCC, No. 18-1326 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 11, 2018) (consolidated with No. 18-1294 and subject to pending motion to transfer to the Tenth Circuit) " City of Eugene v. FCC, No. 18-1330 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 12, 2018) (consolidated with No. 18-1294 and subject to pending motion to transfer to the Tenth Circuit) Add. 2 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 30 ADDENDUM B List of Additional Record Submissions Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 8/3/2018 Alexis Pipkins https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108031036606166 8/3/2018 Anthony Trapchak https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803205926787 8/3/2018 Braden Pace https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080365199517 8/3/2018 brett marsh https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080334825948 8/3/2018 Cara Pace https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803931011736 8/3/2018 Charles Hannah https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803157116635 8/3/2018 Chris O'Shea https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803438107784 8/3/2018 Christopher Beattie https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108031983508576 8/3/2018 Christopher Seal https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108031099505919 8/3/2018 Daniel Akins https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108031824607095 8/3/2018 Dean Robitaille https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108031264211605 8/3/2018 Doris Hudson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803018822823 8/3/2018 Doug Tanner https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803022857856 8/3/2018 Dwayne Williams https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803922418089 8/3/2018 Eric Henry https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080391233659 8/3/2018 Esther bishop https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803148419547 8/3/2018 Grant Welch https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108032027809202 8/3/2018 Ian Brown https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803277919958 8/3/2018 James DANIELS https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803258618968 8/3/2018 Jasok Guillotte https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803878018364 8/3/2018 Jason McGrath https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803084401035 8/3/2018 JEROME WESTER https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803087045073 8/3/2018 Jessica Baldwin https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803251910284 8/3/2018 Joseph Ward https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080381549267 Add. 3 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 31 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 8/3/2018 Keith Hunter https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803019182391 8/3/2018 Lawrence Smith https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108032405906177 8/3/2018 Mao Mooney https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803900405208 8/3/2018 Mary Johnson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080348921101 8/3/2018 Mike Koenig https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080386719609 8/3/2018 Mitchell Henderson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080345657016 8/3/2018 Oscar Cardenas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803112045619 8/3/2018 paul merrill https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080383582972 8/3/2018 Robby Pace https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803515229126 8/3/2018 Robert Lamoureux https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803628107336 8/3/2018 Robert Pollock https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803738312982 8/3/2018 Samuel Choc https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080393027033 8/3/2018 Tamar Hernandez https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080342234626 8/3/2018 Terry Dugan https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080346606351 8/3/2018 Tim Childres https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803289421517 8/3/2018 Tom Kounnas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080303812056 8/3/2018 Venson Smith https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108032283004118 8/3/2018 Virginia Massey https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803529017452 8/3/2018 Wade Kilgore https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803109806023 8/3/2018 William White https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10803134647297 8/6/2018 AT&T Services, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10806085432193 8/6/2018 Ben King https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080471508038 8/6/2018 Carolyn A. Prince https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10806464901215 8/6/2018 David Roetman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108061356213194 8/6/2018 Paul Grohman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080469937753 8/6/2018 Timothy Leslie https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10805064135720 8/7/2018 City of Austin https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10807670805455 8/7/2018 Terry Alexander https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108071369724733 Add. 4 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 32 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 8/8/2018 Association of American Railroads https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10808116114407 8/8/2018 Girard Moore https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108080700704484 8/8/2018 Jonathan Daniels https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1080802329749 8/8/2018 Shannon Palmer https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108082890812211 8/9/2018 Lawana Mayfield https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10810152514196 8/9/2018 Public Knowledge https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10809269611247 8/10/2018 American Tower Corporation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1081010935734 8/10/2018 Angela Fox https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108102593520654 8/10/2018 AT&T Services, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10810886708363 8/10/2018 Crown Castle https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10810312521593 8/10/2018 CTIA and Wireless Infrastructure Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10810298508690 8/10/2018 Public Knowledge https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10810250879708 8/10/2018 Verizon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10810285875669 8/13/2018 American Tower Corporation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10813699626528 8/13/2018 Commissioner Sal Pace https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1081323736598 8/13/2018 Karon Gubbrud https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10812212018992 8/13/2018 NCTA - The Internet & Television Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1081301353921 8/13/2018 Senator Duane Ankney https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10813638017316 8/13/2018 Sprint https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108130888126150 8/13/2018 Stratus Networks https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082282509043 8/17/2018 INCOMPAS https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1081710079256 8/17/2018 Office of General Counsel https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/081718591571 8/17/2018 tester https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108171783901988 8/20/2018 Benjamin L. Yousef https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108200039605529 8/20/2018 City of Palo Alto, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108200187221825 8/20/2018 NCTA - The Internet & Television Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108202002411328 Northern Dakota County Cable Communications 8/20/2018 Commission https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10820019832278 Add. 5 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 33 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 8/21/2018 City of Mukilteo https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082161533759 8/21/2018 Diamond Communications LLC https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10821216037970 8/21/2018 Frank Scammell https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108212969027478 8/21/2018 Southwest Suburban Cable Commission https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10821943716239 8/22/2018 City of Portland, Oregon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10822136229600 8/22/2018 City of San Jose, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108221650207848 8/22/2018 Jeff Bohm https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10822015184963 8/22/2018 Uniti Fiber https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108222913714761 8/23/2018 City of Bloomington, Minnesota https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082333657951 8/23/2018 Mayor and Council of Rockville https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082300946978 8/23/2018 Verizon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108231242818450 8/24/2018 Andrew Thompson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082492178054 8/24/2018 Douglas County, Colorado https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082416288870 8/27/2018 John King https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108270595820025 8/27/2018 Prysmian Group https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10825634717632 8/27/2018 Wireless Internet Service Providers Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10827118627616 8/28/2018 Jason Kaiman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10828142445623 8/28/2018 Vermeer Corporation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10829248354634 8/29/2018 Cheryl Weisheit https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1082926310151 8/29/2018 Corning Incorporated https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10829149623610 8/30/2018 City of Lincoln, Nebraska https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1083065780631 8/30/2018 City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10830111857503 8/30/2018 CTIA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10831104660066 8/30/2018 Kimberly Dudik,Jody Thomas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1083025005914 8/30/2018 Mark Gorman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108302206313216 8/30/2018 Mark Gorman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108300171902717 8/30/2018 Mark Gorman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10830640427462 8/30/2018 Michael C. Taylor https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10830132734077 Add. 6 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 34 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 8/30/2018 Nokia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10830228301910 8/30/2018 Skyway Towers https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108301086805673 8/30/2018 Wireless Infrastructure Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108300290817489 8/31/2018 Brian Hill https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1083114849253 8/31/2018 National Coalition on Black Civic Participation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/108312889422413 9/4/2018 American Council of the blind https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109041635307239 9/4/2018 City of San Jose, Calfornia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090486618420 9/4/2018 Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/0904173198781 9/4/2018 CTIA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10904166307418 9/4/2018 CTIA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090486871515 9/4/2018 david roetman; https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10904518300320 9/4/2018 Marin Telecommunications Agency https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10906253119752 9/4/2018 Michael C. Levine https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090447719071 9/4/2018 National Caucus and Center on Black Aging https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10904097802078 9/4/2018 Niraj Antani https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090414176472 9/4/2018 Smart Communities,Special Districts Coalition https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10904323720005 9/4/2018 The City of New York - DoITT https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10904196886754 9/5/2018 Corning Incorporated https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10905352013311 9/5/2018 LGBT Technology Partnership https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10905072215911 9/5/2018 Marcella Gadson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090687144517 9/5/2018 National Hispanic Council on Aging https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10905899708505 9/5/2018 United Spinal Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10905130766650 9/5/2018 Verticom https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109053070717503 https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 9/5/2018 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 353962A1.pdf Candace Waterman, Women Impacting Public 9/6/2018 Policy https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10906146386745 9/6/2018 City of Lake Forest https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10906122815390 Add. 7 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 35 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/6/2018 CTIA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090610768719 9/6/2018 Jean Rasch https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090667360935 9/6/2018 NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1090618571908 Smart Communities and Special Districts 9/6/2018 Coalition https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10906119432986 Smart Communities Coalition,National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,National League of Cities,U.S. 9/6/2018 Conference of Mayors https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10906149012775 9/6/2018 Sprint https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10906010428904 9/7/2018 City of Lincoln, Nebraska https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10907831811895 9/7/2018 The Village of Greendale, WI https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109072339701081 9/10/2018 American Tower Corporation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091087755014 9/10/2018 Dan Shaul https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10910035431765 9/10/2018 LOIS HANSEN https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10910560125092 9/10/2018 LOIS HANSEN https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10910261430352 9/10/2018 NCTA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109102404924504 Scottsville Magisterial District of Albemarle 9/10/2018 County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109100508625895 Smart Communities and Special Districts 9/10/2018 Coalition https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109100401318205 9/10/2018 Wallowa County Board of Commissioners https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109102299418558 9/10/2018 Wireless Infrastructure Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10911494304791 9/10/2018 Wireless Internet Service Providers Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109100680518364 9/10/2018 Wireline Competition Bureau https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/0910235611003 9/11/2018 American Tower Corporation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10911205646147 9/11/2018 Fred. A Lamphere, Butte County Sheriff https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10911976528715 9/11/2018 Massachusetts Municipal Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10911732627893 Add. 8 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 36 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/11/2018 Wireless Internet Service Providers Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091159287620 9/12/2018 City of College Park,Mayor Patrick Wojahn https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109121797010716 9/12/2018 Elaine Unger,John Unger https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913026262618 9/12/2018 H davis https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091370882185 9/12/2018 H davis https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913034198758 9/12/2018 Jean Rasch https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10912802712480 9/12/2018 Kristi Lentz https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109132355309239 9/12/2018 Lonnie Gilbert https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091391748532 9/12/2018 Mike Posey,City of Huntington Beach https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091224380285 9/12/2018 Mobilitie, LLC https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10912394120932 9/12/2018 Noah A. Simon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10912565921335 9/12/2018 Noah A. Simon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10912443205763 9/12/2018 NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10912284299091 9/12/2018 Robert Brunson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091211518071 9/12/2018 Steven,Wade https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091266384982 9/12/2018 Town of Culpeper, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091263539922 9/13/2018 American Tower Corporation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913130903242 9/13/2018 Charles Martin https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109131147510232 9/13/2018 Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913417829818 9/13/2018 City Attorney's Office, Casper, Wyoming https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109130321721302 9/13/2018 City of Coshocton https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091328495462 9/13/2018 city of north port https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913068970864 9/13/2018 City of Wickliffe, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913108759087 9/13/2018 Condux International, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913052283969 9/13/2018 County of Prince George, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913181280369 9/13/2018 Dave Molidor https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109130143207895 9/13/2018 Genna Biddix https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109132680024793 9/13/2018 Jeanice Barcelo https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914046724667 Add. 9 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 37 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/13/2018 Julie Conrad https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091398910618 9/13/2018 Keith Mays https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091388006311 9/13/2018 Kiel Mangus, City of Manhattan https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913776904233 9/13/2018 Kirstin Beatty https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109132083118760 9/13/2018 LOIS HANSEN https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091305019409 9/13/2018 LOIS HANSEN https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109131379814346 9/13/2018 Marilynne Martin https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091306834579 9/13/2018 Mark Graham https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091356675313 9/13/2018 Mark Graham https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091317920434 North Royalton Ward 3 City Councilman Dan 9/13/2018 Langshaw https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109132922823558 9/13/2018 Richard A. Edwards, Mayor https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913949116785 9/13/2018 Richard K. Mavis, Mayor https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913393015823 9/13/2018 Susan Nine https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913074430733 9/13/2018 Tony Tollner https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091358142474 9/13/2018 Village of Bremen, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10913306959215 9/13/2018 Village of New Concord, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091383797707 9/14/2018 Alison Fox Mazzola https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914229595112 9/14/2018 City of McAllen, Texas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914587204491 9/14/2018 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091401886241 9/14/2018 Collins L. Owens, Jr. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109142692017503 9/14/2018 David Meyer https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109142247815877 9/14/2018 Illinois Municipal League https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109141386713461 9/14/2018 Jean R Rasch https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914671816071 9/14/2018 Jean Rasch https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109182870815497 9/14/2018 Kentucky League of Cities https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091406763815 Lynn Stull, Lead Organizer for Oconomwoc for 9/14/2018 Safe Technology, UA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109141704015320 Add. 10 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 38 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/14/2018 Mark Farina https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914175157705 9/14/2018 Mark Wahl https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914452717939 9/14/2018 Mary Burton https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914712721430 9/14/2018 Mayor Mary Ann Lefker https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109142540700335 9/14/2018 Mayor Pauline Russo Cutter, City of San Leandro https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109142791916008 9/14/2018 Paul laura https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914216702289 9/14/2018 Paul R Albrecht https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109142585810129 9/14/2018 Rep. Jason Saine https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109141963801467 Richard J. Schuettler, Executive Director, PA 9/14/2018 Municipal League https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914085228943 9/14/2018 Soula Culver https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091481564246 9/14/2018 Stephanie Austin https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109140834613444 9/14/2018 The Honorable Joe McComb https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091499825036 9/14/2018 Town of Ashland, VA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091423580569 9/14/2018 Town of Culpeper, VA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914537421004 9/14/2018 TracFone Wireless, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109140137818978 9/14/2018 Village of Mariemont https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10914012406784 William Murdock, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning 9/14/2018 Commission https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109140369829775 9/14/2018 Wireless Infrastructure Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091440207880 9/17/2018 17-84 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091701455247 9/17/2018 17-84 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170240324244 9/17/2018 Adam T. Van Dyke https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091713416466 9/17/2018 Adam T. Van Dyke https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091783040228 9/17/2018 Alan Jones https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918051420367 9/17/2018 Alan Jones https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918803118305 9/17/2018 Alan/Joanne Herren https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10916220186074 9/17/2018 Alan/Joanne Herren https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091619729043 Add. 11 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 39 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/17/2018 Ann H Mallek https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180816704803 9/17/2018 Apex Towers https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917403725583 9/17/2018 April Blake https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091798651375 9/17/2018 Arlene F. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917240143591 9/17/2018 Barry Lerner https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181092725471 9/17/2018 Bart Balmer https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918885324951 9/17/2018 Battista Adamo https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917035259230 9/17/2018 Battista Adamo https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917292326794 9/17/2018 Bert J. Goodrich https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917273653088 9/17/2018 Bonnie E MCMURRY https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917284967112 9/17/2018 Bonnie E MCMURRY https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172846928658 9/17/2018 Bonnie E MCMURRY https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917090171206 9/17/2018 Bonnie e McMurry https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917073664463 9/17/2018 Bonnie e McMurry https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917815420590 9/17/2018 Bonnie e McMurry https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091790408754 9/17/2018 Brett Bucher https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917974016176 9/17/2018 Brian Riblet https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917038597024 9/17/2018 BRIAN V JARVIS https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109160096718963 9/17/2018 Bridey Matheney https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917511226469 9/17/2018 C.L. Carlile https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109171302123883 9/17/2018 C.L. Carlile https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091704394075 9/17/2018 Carol Caywood https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10916158966914 9/17/2018 Carol Kuzdenyi,Tony Keppelman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10916501023550 9/17/2018 Cate Leger https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172272919826 9/17/2018 Cecile Leneman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091707889929 9/17/2018 Chris C. Foulke https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091765460021 9/17/2018 Cincinnati Bell Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170897007271 9/17/2018 City of Clayton https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170857803427 Add. 12 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 40 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/17/2018 City of Dublin, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091720491755 9/17/2018 City of Everett WA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109150513901262 9/17/2018 Constance Anderson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918020123466 9/17/2018 Constance Anderson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180088429317 9/17/2018 Corinne Ashley Mayock Van Dyke https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181702919287 9/17/2018 Corinne Ashley Mayock Van Dyke https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109182420808693 9/17/2018 Cynthia Price https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091629399558 Damon Connolly, President, Marin County (CA) 9/17/2018 Board of Supervisors https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170053526020 Damon Connolly, President, Marin County (CA) 9/17/2018 Board of Supervisors https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091755359161 9/17/2018 Dan Newell https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170510423676 9/17/2018 David Adams https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917058769061 9/17/2018 David Scheffler, Mayor https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917633729061 9/17/2018 Debra Albus https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091702158379 9/17/2018 Debra Albus https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109171578316289 9/17/2018 Debra DeKam https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091714838406 9/17/2018 Delegate Kathy Byron https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917610706528 9/17/2018 Deloitte Consulting LLP https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917691803972 9/17/2018 Donna DeSanto Ott https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918180014576 9/17/2018 Dr. Mary Jane Ingui https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917137340217 9/17/2018 Dr. Sandra Ross https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918846609669 9/17/2018 DUANE PETERSON https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091800507684 9/17/2018 E. Sandra Nixon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917272609327 9/17/2018 E. Sandra Nixon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917687525395 9/17/2018 Eleanor Lyman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091636415936 9/17/2018 Ethan Pollack https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917792914577 9/17/2018 Ford Greene https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091759576296 Add. 13 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 41 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/17/2018 Ford Greene https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917074179912 9/17/2018 Frank Gonzales Jr. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091707798403 9/17/2018 Garril Page https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10915212701124 9/17/2018 Georgia Municipal Association, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917182210085 9/17/2018 Harrison Township https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917945803380 9/17/2018 Heather Dauler https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917130618864 9/17/2018 Helene Robertson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917757013434 9/17/2018 Helene Robertson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170631006968 9/17/2018 Jan Flanzer https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917295609245 9/17/2018 Jeanine Deal https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917742709970 9/17/2018 Jeffrey Palm https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917145011304 9/17/2018 Jeffrey R. Palm https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917194922117 9/17/2018 jessica bucher https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172331017034 9/17/2018 jessica bucher https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091790330546 9/17/2018 Jessica Lerner https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091826135852 9/17/2018 Joan Capozzoli https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091753064320 9/17/2018 Joan Kaul https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091824648827 9/17/2018 Joan Kaul https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181168215987 9/17/2018 Joe Jensen https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109171907903523 9/17/2018 Johanna Finney https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091701133738 Johnson County, Iowa Planning, Development, 9/17/2018 and Sustainability Department https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917580712774 9/17/2018 Judy Aizuss https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091896729463 9/17/2018 Judy Aizuss https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918193008622 9/17/2018 Julie Van Balen https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917945425267 Kate Kheel for Maryland Smart Meter 9/17/2018 Awareness https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918245556709 9/17/2018 Kathleen M. Sundmark,R. Paul Sundmark https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917507509335 Add. 14 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 42 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/17/2018 Ken Albert https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091775538535 9/17/2018 Kiah Bosy https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918079426494 9/17/2018 kim Burggraf,Paul Harris https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180281016261 9/17/2018 Kim Hahn https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917382521921 9/17/2018 Kim Hahn https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917616728399 9/17/2018 Kip J. Hudson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091665765801 9/17/2018 Kristen Byrne https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170503519883 9/17/2018 Kristin Dotterrer,Daniel Dotterrer https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10916054753407 9/17/2018 League of California Cities https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917531330502 9/17/2018 Leah Spitzer https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172198013084 9/17/2018 Leslie Rosenfeld https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10916988520688 9/17/2018 Lisa Mayock https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918304552746 9/17/2018 m thurman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917285216619 9/17/2018 Margaret Hall https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109162246827092 9/17/2018 Marin Lipowitz https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172116212781 9/17/2018 Mark Graham https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170285026377 9/17/2018 Mark Graham https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917580717306 9/17/2018 Mark Schwieterman,Donald Patterson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091771794321 9/17/2018 McKinley County New Mexico https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091782076806 9/17/2018 Mike Mayock https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180330003224 9/17/2018 Ms. Anahaar https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917292703072 9/17/2018 Nancy Scheidt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091537392109 National Association of Telecommunications 9/17/2018 Officers and Advisors https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917465316626 9/17/2018 New Networks Institute,Irregulators https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918690818478 9/17/2018 Nicholas Ciappetta, Huntington Town Attorney https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170457210303 9/17/2018 Nina Beety https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091787835748 9/17/2018 Nina Beety https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109171162407331 Add. 15 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 43 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/17/2018 Nina Beety https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170784130750 9/17/2018 Olemara Peters https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180369715910 9/17/2018 Olemara Peters https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918651007672 9/17/2018 Paige Clarke https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091798615583 9/17/2018 Pamela A Ruth https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170044430323 9/17/2018 Pamela Menke https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091732573833 9/17/2018 Patricia Lesavoy, Ed.D. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180173307617 9/17/2018 Patricia Lesavoy, Ed.D. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918197977855 9/17/2018 Patricia R. Venza https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091693648414 9/17/2018 Pennsylvanians for Safe Technology https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917277109407 9/17/2018 Peter Donovan https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091896056969 9/17/2018 Phyllis Kirson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917230520171 9/17/2018 Phyllis Kirson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091718578494 9/17/2018 Phyllis Kirson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172654107097 9/17/2018 Rachel Gaunt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109171292906938 9/17/2018 Rachel Gaunt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172855802986 9/17/2018 Ray Meyers https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917289137824 9/17/2018 Reinette Senum https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091781695611 9/17/2018 Richard Cristdahl https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917193401400 9/17/2018 Rick Gordon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091677313498 9/17/2018 Robert Ernst https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109170568223127 9/17/2018 Robert Ernst https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091728313154 9/17/2018 Roberta Anthes https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918628314543 9/17/2018 Roberta Anthes https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091858665295 9/17/2018 S. Gregory https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172975926753 9/17/2018 S.B. Straus https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918984018003 9/17/2018 Samuel Case https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091873442538 Add. 16 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 44 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission Sarah Aminoff, California Alliance for Safer 9/17/2018 Technology https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091715005886 9/17/2018 sharon Hamilton https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10916198894841 9/17/2018 Stephanie Falcone https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918029722777 9/17/2018 Stephanie Falcone https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181508521273 9/17/2018 Stephanie K Thomas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917197729578 9/17/2018 Stephanie K. Thomas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917122607629 9/17/2018 Stephen Phillip Romine https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917761210920 9/17/2018 Steven L. Schainker https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917212012369 9/17/2018 Steven Wasserman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109172655905959 9/17/2018 Steven Wasserman https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917234355057 9/17/2018 Susan Gage https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917211799932 9/17/2018 Susan Nine https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10915161218259 9/17/2018 Taras Lumiere https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917843124369 9/17/2018 thomas schnaidt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917885330165 9/17/2018 Tina Chow https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091719326762 9/17/2018 Toby Stover https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917597424848 9/17/2018 Vicki Gold https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10917282746499 9/17/2018 Victoria Sievers https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091616804532 9/17/2018 Wyoming Association of Municipalities https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091705276336 9/17/2018 you https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109182007102799 9/17/2018 you https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091870110858 9/17/2018 Zack Pelzel https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091856690205 9/18/2018 1 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091876557848 Andrew Stone,Steve Patterson,City of Athens, 9/18/2018 OH https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918302337549 9/18/2018 Andy Leon Harney https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918743004128 9/18/2018 Arlington County Virginia government https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181189029671 Add. 17 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 45 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/18/2018 Board of Stevens County Commissioners https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918290000607 9/18/2018 Bonnie Michael https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180598309279 9/18/2018 Bonnie Michael https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091871068085 9/18/2018 Brad J. Townsend https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091891740389 Brian Humphress, on behalf of the Miami Valley 9/18/2018 Communications Council https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918717300261 9/18/2018 Brian Lazor, City of Mason https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091841047969 9/18/2018 Cheriel Jensen https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918383317370 9/18/2018 Chevy Chase Village https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918323604670 9/18/2018 Chris Vitolins https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918154205120 9/18/2018 Chris Vitolins https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091831222665 9/18/2018 Cindy Jones Mills https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091829401090 9/18/2018 City of Akron https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091811886255 9/18/2018 City of Beachwood https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918787922599 9/18/2018 City of Beavercreek, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918899010606 9/18/2018 City of Braidwood https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091849462795 9/18/2018 City of Brookville https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192059811909 9/18/2018 City of Chardon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918573230336 9/18/2018 City of Culver City https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180955611864 9/18/2018 City of Danville, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091807939762 9/18/2018 City of Delaware https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918279388213 9/18/2018 City of Gaithersburg https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091880906436 9/18/2018 City of Hilliard, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918732919802 9/18/2018 City of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091875578853 9/18/2018 City of Kent, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091810619242 9/18/2018 City of Lorain Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091893395461 City of Mukilteo,City of Bremerton,City of 9/18/2018 Mountlake Terrace,City of Kirkland,City of https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109183078308187 Add. 18 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 46 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission Redmond,City of Issaquah,City of Lake Stevens,City of Richland 9/18/2018 City of Newport, Minnesota https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091860405146 9/18/2018 City of Oberlin https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091804758676 9/18/2018 City Of Pendleton, Oregon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10926088539553 9/18/2018 City of Piedmont https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918097503031 9/18/2018 City of Pismo Beach, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091896919825 9/18/2018 City of Rochester New York https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918434917028 9/18/2018 City of San Jose https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918161513154 9/18/2018 Clark County, NV https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091826561770 9/18/2018 Coalition of Local Internet Choice https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091888884850 Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance 9/18/2018 (CCUA) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091806715499 9/18/2018 Communications Workers of America https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091924138490 9/18/2018 Consumers for Safe Cell Phones https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091888567788 County of Louisa, Virginia,Jeffrey 9/18/2018 Ferrel,Christian Goodwin https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091872800549 9/18/2018 County of Yolo, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091857979484 9/18/2018 CTIA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181129416342 9/18/2018 Debra March https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091912829733 9/18/2018 Denise Capobianco https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918476614018 9/18/2018 Denise Capobianco https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091812390104 9/18/2018 Diane Barber https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918144943421 9/18/2018 EMF Safety Network https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918052322900 Eric Holmes, City Manager, City of Vancouver, 9/18/2018 WA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091830079966 9/18/2018 Government of Stafford County Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918378924797 9/18/2018 IRREGULATORS,New Networks Institute https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091879852059 Add. 19 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 47 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/18/2018 IRREGULATORS,New Networks Institute https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180323113314 9/18/2018 James M. Benster https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091873823526 9/18/2018 James M. Brown,Town of Poolesville https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091872773979 9/18/2018 janet FitzGerald https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091895090054 9/18/2018 Janet FitzGerald https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091878003458 9/18/2018 Janine McNamara https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181765819703 9/18/2018 Jeffrey Arndt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919960423410 9/18/2018 Jeffrey Arndt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091944823061 9/18/2018 Jennifer Perez https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091964862387 9/18/2018 Jill Boudreau https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918140119228 9/18/2018 John Duffy https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918575527878 9/18/2018 John V. Cunard, Director https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091832677627 9/18/2018 John V. Cunard, Director https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918491321280 9/18/2018 Josh Cohn, Mayor https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091876394914 Kate Kheel for Maryland Smart Meter 9/18/2018 Awareness https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918151883853 9/18/2018 Kate Reese Hurd https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181266422922 9/18/2018 Katie McAuliffe https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091877950336 9/18/2018 Kristen Byrne https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180100715722 9/18/2018 Kristin Moriarty-Termunde https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180161422148 Lamont G. McClure, Northampton County 9/18/2018 Executive https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918299947818 9/18/2018 Leon Towarnicki, City of Martinsville, VA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918163720332 9/18/2018 Linda Dance https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918172896723 9/18/2018 Linda Dance, Raymond Stalker https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918146570272 9/18/2018 Ling Wang https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918678413490 Margo Warminski, Cincinnati Preservation 9/18/2018 Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918035367648 Add. 20 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 48 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY 9/18/2018 (MTA) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918964413670 9/18/2018 Mary Beth Brangan, EON https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918261393121 9/18/2018 Maryland Municipal League https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918268723794 9/18/2018 Max Ventura https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091842595075 9/18/2018 Max Ventura https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918177236910 Mayor Allison Silberberg,City of Alexandria, 9/18/2018 Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918601603989 9/18/2018 Mayor Andrew J. Ginther https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918117640267 Mayor Tom Barrett,Ashanti Hamilton,Robert Bauman,Michael Murphy,Jose Perez,Terry 9/18/2018 Witkowski https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181161424056 Montgomery County Chapter of the Maryland 9/18/2018 Municipal League https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091841909409 9/18/2018 Nan Whaley, Mayor of Dayton, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918397519290 Nancy Joseph,John Joseph,brittany Joseph,alivia joseph,Nolan Joseph,Barb Bresson,Linda 9/18/2018 Kurz,Denise Pickett,Chantal Woods https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091875067115 9/18/2018 Natalie Ventrice https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918796510864 9/18/2018 Natalie Ventrice https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109182224103874 9/18/2018 Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109182484001351 New York State Conference of Mayors and 9/18/2018 Municipal Officials https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918351622225 9/18/2018 North Dakota Association of Counties https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091873501366 9/18/2018 North Metro Telecommunications Commission https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918339911030 Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications 9/18/2018 Commission https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091808789180 9/18/2018 Norton City Council https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918967122464 Add. 21 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 49 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission NYC Department of Information Technology and 9/18/2018 Telecommunications https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091989140436 9/18/2018 Ohio Municipal League https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091841732958 9/18/2018 paska gjonaj https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091885898022 9/18/2018 Paul Silver https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918295566037 9/18/2018 Peggy Heglund https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109181287004276 9/18/2018 Pennsylvanians Against Smart Meters https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091970274808 9/18/2018 Peter T Beaudry, II,Pierre Beaudry https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091805418396 9/18/2018 Peter Thomas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918135596811 9/18/2018 R Blake Crosby https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918006426994 9/18/2018 Rachael Arndt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091892704315 9/18/2018 Rachael Arndt https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918065678546 9/18/2018 Rebecca Carol Smith https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918281421169 9/18/2018 Rebecca Carol Smith https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918028586050 9/18/2018 REBECCA CAROL SMITH https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918445124182 9/18/2018 Renville County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918085330735 9/18/2018 Sarah Reilly https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918028917580 9/18/2018 Scott J Compton https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190164425295 9/18/2018 Scott J Compton https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192855630795 9/18/2018 Sharon Schrader https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918806602953 9/18/2018 Sheila Hemphill https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091831496113 9/18/2018 Sheila Pomaranski https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109193012913542 9/18/2018 Sheila Pomaranski https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919241890431 9/18/2018 SmartWorks Partners,Angela Stacy https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091941692836 9/18/2018 Southeast Council of Governments https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918162642523 9/18/2018 St. Lucie County, Florida https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918008515510 9/18/2018 Steven V. Ponto, Mayor City of Brookfield https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918559509826 9/18/2018 Terrie Burns https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091896211794 Add. 22 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 50 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission The Ohio Mayors Alliance,Mayor John Cranley,Mayor Tim DeGeeter,Mayor Andrew Ginther,Mayor Don Patterson,Mayor Lydia Mihalik,Mayor Larry Mulligan Jr.,Mayor Nan 9/18/2018 Whaley https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918304953038 9/18/2018 Todd Levent https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109180673630106 9/18/2018 Town of Cortland Illinois https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918140248078 9/18/2018 Village of Elk Grove Village, IL https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091864270016 9/18/2018 Wendi Sue https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918206634206 9/18/2018 West Valley City, Utah https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919902707967 9/18/2018 Winifred Thomas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10918674117105 9/19/2018 5G Americas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919867226618 9/19/2018 5G Americas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919278553404 9/19/2018 American Tower Corporation https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919177843629 9/19/2018 Andrew P. Fox https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919250823413 9/19/2018 Ann Lindstrom https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919429524114 9/19/2018 Association County Commissioners of Georgia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191360516070 9/19/2018 Association of Minnesota Counties https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919573013122 9/19/2018 AT&T Services, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192959226984 Baker County,William Harvey,Mark 9/19/2018 Bennett,Burce Nichols https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919071767409 Board of County Commissioners, Sublette 9/19/2018 County, Wyoming https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919058769514 Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County 9/19/2018 Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091977464598 Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County 9/19/2018 Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919236758421 Add. 23 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 51 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission Bob Kunau,Tim Darrington,Paul Christensen,Board of Cassia County Idaho 9/19/2018 Commissioners https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190920603172 9/19/2018 Botetourt County, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920167715379 9/19/2018 Broward County, Florida https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919098025505 Burnsville Mayor Elizabeth B. Kautz,City of 9/19/2018 Burnsville, Minn. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191494020042 9/19/2018 Butte County Board of Supervisors https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920234361299 9/19/2018 California Emerging Technology Fund https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092045808349 9/19/2018 Centre County Goverment (PA) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091982359935 9/19/2018 Charles Glass https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091990144733 9/19/2018 Charles Iley https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191771906246 9/19/2018 City of Anna https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190885004928 9/19/2018 City of Brookville https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919042205711 9/19/2018 City of Chicago https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919756804686 9/19/2018 City of Chula Vista https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091934155301 9/19/2018 City of College Park, Georgia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092789854729 9/19/2018 City of Coon Rapids, Minnesota https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191209423210 9/19/2018 City Of Cortland https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191075614853 9/19/2018 City of Cuyahoga Falls https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191486426676 9/19/2018 City of Eugene, Oregon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919094010886 9/19/2018 City of Foster City https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192018521139 9/19/2018 City of Fredericksburg, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091979890429 9/19/2018 City of Hayward, CA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919241404693 9/19/2018 City of Kent https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919086526015 9/19/2018 City of Las Vegas, NV https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919199282424 9/19/2018 City of Lincoln, Nebraska https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091905860458 9/19/2018 City of Los Angeles, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091933119375 Add. 24 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 52 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/19/2018 City of McKinney, Texas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919175504165 9/19/2018 City of Medina, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192462330417 9/19/2018 City of Mount Vernon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192835511651 9/19/2018 City of Olmos Park https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919409411372 9/19/2018 City of Overland Park, Kansas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190549905790 9/19/2018 City of Palmdale https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092050227863 9/19/2018 City of Petaluma https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092052109816 9/19/2018 City of Rockville, Maryland https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190999203047 9/19/2018 City of Roseville, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109202537808947 9/19/2018 City of Santa Maria, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092095095564 9/19/2018 City of South St. Paul, Minnesota https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919078028111 9/19/2018 City Of Virginia Beach https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109272103221094 9/19/2018 City of Yuma, Arizona https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091932758263 Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance 9/19/2018 (CCUA) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091966485794 Commissioner Don Hodge,Judge Dan P. Joyce,Commissioner Larry Wilson,Malheur 9/19/2018 County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919624310681 9/19/2018 Competitive Carriers Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920265430210 9/19/2018 Cooke County, Texas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091967824895 9/19/2018 Councilman Bill Hollander https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919309631921 County Commissioners Association of 9/19/2018 Pennsylvania https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919153585708 9/19/2018 County Legislator John Lightfoot https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091951915636 9/19/2018 County of Augusta, VA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919914706931 9/19/2018 County of Cumberland https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919167986612 9/19/2018 County of Fresno https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919691705898 9/19/2018 County of Imperial https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919908116253 Add. 25 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 53 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/19/2018 County of Monterey, CA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919335500999 9/19/2018 County of Sacramento https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920815418249 9/19/2018 County of San Diego https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919647103556 9/19/2018 County of Warren, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919235846284 9/19/2018 Crown Castle https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190528109841 9/19/2018 CTIA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109201209314771 9/19/2018 Cty of San Antonio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109202756204608 9/19/2018 Dan Langshaw https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10927202782725 9/19/2018 Dane County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919111805711 9/19/2018 Dave Pine https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919135714229 9/19/2018 Diane J. Martinez https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919263913390 9/19/2018 Duchesne County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919168094217 9/19/2018 Eric Maxwell https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190565619987 9/19/2018 Erie County NY https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191556806555 9/19/2018 Gloucester County, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092058190290 9/19/2018 Granville County, North Carolina https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919160096176 9/19/2018 Greater Bexar County Council of Cities https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919417110800 Harney County,Pete Runnels,Mark Owens,Patty 9/19/2018 Dorroh https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091979091600 9/19/2018 Hennepin County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919060501161 9/19/2018 Howard County, Maryland https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091967496576 9/19/2018 Hubert Beck https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919399206165 9/19/2018 Humboldt County, CA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920707125469 9/19/2018 INCOMPAS https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920007086830 James E. Baker, City Manager, City of 9/19/2018 Chesapeake https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919970615961 9/19/2018 Jo Daviess County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091992148369 9/19/2018 Kaley Schultze https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919335902414 Add. 26 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 54 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/19/2018 Kimball County Nebraska https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919671111048 9/19/2018 Kimball County Nebraska https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919562528387 9/19/2018 Kurt Triplett, City Manager, City of Kirkland https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191802105422 9/19/2018 Latah County Planning Department https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919025549936 Latinos in Information Sciemces and Technology 9/19/2018 Association, Jose Marquez https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919487317899 9/19/2018 Los Angeles County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919246717985 9/19/2018 Loudoun County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919931717650 9/19/2018 Martin J. Bilek https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919720616768 Mary B. Bunting, City Manager, City of 9/19/2018 Hampton, VA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192639324006 9/19/2018 Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919149008217 9/19/2018 Maureen Davey https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091958735124 Mayor Greg Fischer,Louisville Metro 9/19/2018 Government https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919796409517 9/19/2018 Mayor Henry Wilson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919135208764 9/19/2018 Mayor John Cranley, City of Cincinnati https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919131524220 9/19/2018 Mayor Victoria Woodards https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919117530402 9/19/2018 Michael Dylan Brennan https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919486815220 9/19/2018 Monroe County, Florida https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919133249084 9/19/2018 Morgan County Commission https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191063913927 National Association of Regulatory Utility 9/19/2018 Commissioners https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109193017613140 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,National League of Cities,United States Conference of Mayors,National Association of Counties,National Association of Regional 9/19/2018 Councils https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919028495631 Add. 27 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 55 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/19/2018 National Association of Towns and Townships https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192612023425 National Rural Health Association,American Telemedicine Association,National Association of 9/19/2018 Rural Health Clinics https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919031725561 9/19/2018 NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109200834905206 9/19/2018 Orange County, CA Board of Supervisors https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919390216999 9/19/2018 Patrick Bloomingdale https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919062311302 9/19/2018 Prince George County, VA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092731541703 9/19/2018 Prince William County, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109202851108466 Queen Anne's County Maryland Board of County 9/19/2018 Commissioners https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192501630598 9/19/2018 Ricardo Ramirez https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190429901735 9/19/2018 Robert DeArmond,Scott Blain https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919151083814 9/19/2018 Robert L. Hosack https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190276614653 9/19/2018 Rural County Representatives of California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919689409608 9/19/2018 San Francisco, City and County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192605411402 9/19/2018 Sean Lanier, PE, CFM https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919081376496 Seattle City Light,Seattle Department of 9/19/2018 Transportation,City of Seattle https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109191163507187 Smart Communities and Special Districts 9/19/2018 Coalition https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920230003833 South Washington County Telecommunications 9/19/2018 Commission https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919598922474 9/19/2018 Starry, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091939027342 9/19/2018 Steve Willis https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192607027779 9/19/2018 Steve Willis https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109190102107061 9/19/2018 The City of Philadelphia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091977459223 9/19/2018 The City of Philadelphia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192671202479 Add. 28 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 56 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission Thomas C. Lamar, Commission Chair,David McGraw, Commissioner,Richard Walser, 9/19/2018 Commissioner https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919233599955 9/19/2018 T-Mobile USA, Inc. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109201893527990 Town of Danville, California,City of Dublin, California,City of Livermore, California,City of Pleasanton, California,City of San Ramon, 9/19/2018 California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092088469705 Town of Danville, California,City of Dublin, California,City of Livermore, California,City of Pleasanton, California,City of San Ramon, 9/19/2018 California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092072849388 9/19/2018 Urban Counties of California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109192799617715 9/19/2018 Verizon https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091961328707 9/19/2018 Village of Hoffman Estates https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091999375214 9/19/2018 Village of Lake Success https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919477416988 Washington Association of Telecommunications 9/19/2018 Officers and Advisers (WATOA) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091967601406 Washington Association of Telecommunications 9/19/2018 Officers and Advisors https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919100452510 9/19/2018 Waukesha County https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919254752595 9/19/2018 Wireless Infrastructure Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1091988229795 9/19/2018 XG Communities, LLC https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092030930452 Yellowstone County,John Ostlund,Denis 9/19/2018 Pitman,Robyn Driscoll https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10919231529039 9/20/2018 AT&T https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109202453507383 9/20/2018 City of Lakewood, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092009131472 9/20/2018 City of Whitehall https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109272219007399 Add. 29 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 57 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission Computer & Communications Industry 9/20/2018 Association (CCIA) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920245738967 9/20/2018 CTIA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092018022862 9/20/2018 Deloitte Consulting LLP https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092061903608 9/20/2018 Karen Mitchoff https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092018453620 9/20/2018 Kentucky Association of Counties https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092058270600 9/20/2018 Kevin Watson https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920173146463 9/20/2018 NCTA https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109201697409943 9/20/2018 RainbowPUSH https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10920388125556 9/20/2018 Stephen F. Owen https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092008425193 9/20/2018 Village of Gates Mills https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109200674326734 9/21/2018 City of Murrieta, California https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10921285507629 9/21/2018 Elizabeth Shapiro https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10921272058147 9/21/2018 Elizabeth Shapiro https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10921726312351 9/21/2018 Michael L. Beamish, Mayor, City of Troy, OH https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10921253100587 9/21/2018 Town of Middleburg, Virginia https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092166849166 9/24/2018 Cathy Murillo,City of Santa Barbara https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109241131921310 9/24/2018 City of Gahanna https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1002038924516 9/24/2018 Hope Water &Light https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109242216109904 9/24/2018 Paul Smith https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10924144282163 9/24/2018 Randal Barrett https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109240977414768 9/24/2018 Sprint https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109221684019364 9/25/2018 Arkansas Municipal Power Association https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925292808657 9/25/2018 C Barnes https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925005615911 9/25/2018 caroline thrun https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092679432003 9/25/2018 Catherine E. Pugh, Mayor, City of Baltimore https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925290414482 9/25/2018 City of Bentonville, Arkansas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092506860249 9/25/2018 City of North Little Rock https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925006646956 Add. 30 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 58 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/25/2018 City,Conway,Arkansas https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925671213298 9/25/2018 Clarksville Light & Water Company https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925665019722 9/25/2018 Cynthia Curtis https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925824917630 9/25/2018 Dan Schoenberg https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925029652014 9/25/2018 Dan Schoenberg https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925129212969 9/25/2018 Kim E Levinsohn and Marla Levinsohn https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10926086672342 9/25/2018 Mark & Lorene Newood https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925073153649 9/25/2018 Marla Levinsohn https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109261347516960 National Governors Association,National 9/25/2018 Conference of State Legislatures https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925081485126 9/25/2018 Nicholas LiCalzi https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925715614502 9/25/2018 Sandra Betten https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10925260776430 The Honorable Billy Long,The Honorable Fred Upton,The Honorable Susan W. Brooks,The Honorable Gregg Harper,The Honorable Lynn Jenkins, CPA,The Honorable Kevin Yoder,The Honorable Brian Babin,The Honorable Tim Walberg,The Honorable Ron Estes,The Honorable Bill Johnson,The Honorable Robert E. Latta,The Honorable John Ratcliffe,The Honorable Ryan Costello,The Honorable David B. McKinley,The Honorable John Curtis,The Honorable John Shimkus,The Honorable Brett Guthrie,The Honorable Adam Kinzinger,The Honorable Blaine Luetkemeyer,The Honorable Mark Walker,The Honorable Gus Bilirakis,The Honorable Larry Bucshon, M.D.,The Honorable Jeff Duncan,The Honorable Michael C. Burgess, 9/25/2018 M.D.,The Honorable Tom Emmer https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1092585347000 Add. 31 Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110099054 Date Filed: 12/17/2018 Page: 59 Date Received Filer Name(s) Link to Submission 9/26/2018 City of Benton, AR https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109260394411399 9/26/2018 City of Hudson, Ohio https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109260289311995 9/26/2018 Laura Basso https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109270127326030 9/26/2018 Office of Media Relations https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/09261819619664 9/26/2018 Pamela Wallace https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10926091508108 9/26/2018 wim ney https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/109262905606086 9/27/2018 Town of Middleburg https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/100470957004 9/27/2018 Village of Glenwillow https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10040070230463 9/27/2018 Wireline Competition Bureau https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/0927025585935 Add. 32