*Pages 1--34 from Microsoft Word - 52217.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement ) ) ) ) ) ) DECLARATORY RULING Adopted: October 5, 2005 Released: October 6, 2005 By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioner Abernathy concurring and issuing a joint statement; and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing separate statements I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this Order, we interpret and clarify the application of the provisions in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission (“ Nationwide Agreement”) 1 that govern participation of Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Specifically, this Order addresses situations where a federally recognized Indian tribe (“ Indian tribe”) 2 or Native Hawaiian organization (“ NHO”) has not responded to an Applicant’s 3 and the Commission’s efforts to determine whether the Indian tribe or NHO has an interest in participating in the review of proposed construction of communications towers and antennas. 2. We clarify that once an Applicant has made two good faith efforts over 40 days to obtain a response as specified in the Nationwide Agreement, the Commission upon notice will communicate by letter or e- mail with the Indian tribe’s or NHO’s designated cultural resources representative seeking an indication, within 20 days, of the Indian tribe’s or NHO’s interest in participating in review of the proposed construction. The Indian tribe or NHO thus will have received at least three contacts and will have had a total period of at least 60 days in which to respond. If the Indian tribe or NHO does not respond to either the Commission or the Applicant within 20 days of the Commission’s communication, it will be deemed to have no interest in pre- construction review, and the Applicant’s obligations with respect to that Indian tribe or NHO under Section IV of the Nationwide Agreement are complete. This process is effective immediately. 1 47 C. F. R. Part 1, Appendix B. 2 As used herein, the term “Indian tribes” encompasses those Indian tribes, including Alaska Native Villages, recognized by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U. S. C. § 479a et seq. See Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process, WT Docket No. 03- 128, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1073, 1075 n. 3 (2004) (Nationwide Agreement Report and Order). 3 An “Applicant” is defined as “[ a] Commission licensee, permittee, or registration holder, or an applicant or prospective applicant for a wireless or broadcast license, authorization or antenna structure registration, and the duly authorized agents, employees, and contractors of any such person or entity.” Nationwide Agreement, § II. A. 2. 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 2 II. BACKGROUND 3. The Nationwide Agreement implements the Commission’s fulfillment of its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (“ NHPA”) 4 in a streamlined manner that is tailored to the construction of communications towers and other Commission undertakings. 5 Section IV of the Nationwide Agreement governs the participation of Indian tribes and NHOs in undertakings off of tribal lands. Under the Nationwide Agreement, in order to enable the Commission to fulfill its duty of consultation with Indian tribes and NHOs, Applicants must make reasonable and good faith efforts to identify, and ensure contact is made with, Indian tribes and NHOs that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking. 6 To assist Applicants in meeting this requirement, the Commission has established the Tower Construction Notification System (“ TCNS”), an interactive, login and password- protected system which contains contact information for all Indian tribes and NHOs, and which automatically forwards Applicants’ notices of proposed construction to Indian tribes and NHOs. Because each Indian tribe and NHO voluntarily provided information to TCNS regarding the geographic areas in which historic properties of religious and cultural significance to that Indian tribe or NHO may be located, reference to TCNS constitutes a reasonable and good faith effort at identification with respect to that Indian tribe or NHO. 7 Applicants may fulfill their obligation to ensure that initial contacts are made with potentially affected Indian tribes and NHOs either by using TCNS, which will automatically make the initial contacts on behalf of the Commission, or by making contact independently pursuant to a pre- existing relationship. 8 While Applicants are not required to use TCNS, they must make reasonable and good faith efforts to identify potentially affected Indian tribes and NHOs, and they must ensure that these Indian tribes and NHOs are contacted in an effective manner that is respectful of tribal sovereignty. 9 Under the Nationwide Agreement, Applicants must ensure that Indian tribes and NHOs have a reasonable opportunity to respond to communications, ordinarily 30 days, and should make a reasonable effort to follow up in case an Indian tribe or NHO fails to respond to an initial communication. 10 4. The purpose of the initial contact with an Indian tribe or NHO is to begin the process of ascertaining whether historic properties of cultural or religious significance to the Indian tribe or NHO may be affected. 11 Thus, the initial contact does not itself constitute or stand in the place of Section 106 consultation. To the contrary, if an Indian tribe requests government- to- government consultation in the course of its 4 16 U. S. C. § 470f. 5 See Nationwide Agreement Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 1074- 75, para. 1. 6 Nationwide Agreement, §§ IV. B, IV. C. 7 Nationwide Agreement, § IV. B. We note that TCNS contains geographic preferences for all but 21 of the more than 570 federally recognized Indian tribes. For those few Indian tribes and NHOs that have not entered geographic information into TCNS, the Applicant must make reasonable and good faith efforts at identification and contact using other sources. See Public Notice, “Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Announce Enhancement and Provide Clarifications Regarding Use of Tower Construction Notification System,” 20 FCC Rcd 7546, 7549 (WTB/ CGB 2005). 8 See Nationwide Agreement, § IV. E; Nationwide Agreement Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 1107, para. 94. 9 See Nationwide Agreement, §§ IV. C, IV. E, IV. F. We note that all the major carriers and tower companies are using TCNS. 10 Id., §§ IV. F. 4, IV. F. 5. 11 Id., § IV. C; see also id., § IV. G (“ The purposes of communications between the Applicant and Indian tribes or NHOs are: (1) to ascertain whether Historic Properties of religious and cultural significance to the Indian tribe or NHO may be affected by the undertaking and consultation is therefore necessary, and (2) where possible, with the concurrence of the Indian tribe or NHO, to reach an agreement on the presence or absence of effects that may obviate the need for consultation.”). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 3 communications with an Applicant, the Applicant must promptly refer that request to the Commission. 12 If an Indian tribe or NHO indicates that a historic property of religious and cultural significance to it may be affected, the Applicant must invite the Indian tribe or NHO to participate in the Section 106 review as a consulting party. 13 Finally, if an Indian tribe or NHO does not respond to an Applicant’s inquiries, the Applicant must seek the Commission’s guidance. 14 Hence, the initial contact is not intended directly to elicit a final statement from an Indian tribe or NHO regarding the effect of proposed construction on historic properties, but rather to separate undertakings that may have such an effect, and in which the Indian tribe or NHO therefore has an interest in further participation, from those in which it has no interest. 5. Shortly after completing the Nationwide Agreement, the Commission and the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (“ USET”) agreed on Voluntary Best Practices for Expediting the Process of Communications Tower and Antenna Siting Review Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“ USET Best Practices”). 15 The USET Best Practices are intended to guide Applicants in review under Section 106 of the impact of communications facilities on historic properties of religious and cultural significance to USET tribes, consistent with the Nationwide Agreement. 16 6. In order to address delays in facilities construction that have arisen in instances when Indian Tribes and NHOs have not timely responded to initial contacts from Applicants and the Commission, representatives of the wireless industry have asked the Commission to clarify what the Nationwide Agreement requires in these cases. 17 Representatives of Indian tribes have supported the request for clarification. 18 We therefore issue this Declaratory Ruling on our own motion to resolve uncertainty. 19 III. DISCUSSION 7. As set forth in the Nationwide Agreement, the initial steps in identifying Indian tribes and NHOs that may attach cultural and religious significance to potentially affected historic properties and in ensuring that these Indian tribes and NHOs are contacted must be undertaken by the Applicant. An Applicant’s initial attempts at making these contacts should be undertaken through TCNS or as otherwise authorized under the Nationwide Agreement. 20 Ordinarily, 30 days is a reasonable period of time for an Indian tribe or NHO to 12 Id., § IV. G. 13 Id., § IV. H. 14 Id., § IV. G. We note that an Indian tribe or NHO may specify in TCNS that it is not interested in reviewing proposed construction of certain types or in certain locations, in which case the Applicant need not wait for a response. Id., § IV. F. 4. An Indian tribe or NHO may also specify that if it does not respond to initial notifications within 30 days, its lack of response may be taken as an indication of no interest, and no follow up is necessary. 15 See News Release, “Tower Siting Voluntary ‘Best Practices’ Released” (October 25, 2004). 16 USET Best Practices at 1. 17 See Letter from Andrea Williams, Assistant General Counsel, CTIA – The Wireless Association, to Fred Campbell, Acting Wireless Legal Adviser, Office of Chairman Martin, dated August 26, 2005. We note that, of the more than 1500 currently pending tower sites referred to the Commission because one or more Indian tribes or NHOs have not responded to an Applicant’s inquiries whether a historic property of religious and cultural significance may be affected, more than 1000 sites have been referred since August 1, 2005. 18 See Letter from James T. Martin, Executive Director, USET, to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, FCC, dated August 26, 2005; Letter from James T. Martin, Executive Director, USET, to Monica Desai, Chief, Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau, and Catherine Seidel, Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated August 15, 2005. 19 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.2. 20 See Nationwide Agreement, §§ IV. B, IV. E. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 4 respond to such initial contact. 21 If an Indian tribe or NHO does not respond within this time frame, the Applicant should attempt a second contact in a manner reasonably calculated to elicit a response - for example, a telephone call or e- mail directed to the Indian tribe’s or NHO’s designated cultural resources representative. 22 If an Indian tribe or NHO does not respond to this second contact within 10 calendar days, we conclude that it is consistent with the NPA for the Applicant to refer the matter to the Commission for guidance. 23 To facilitate prompt processing of its request, the Applicant may submit its referral to the Commission by e- mail at TribalTowerExchange@ fcc. gov. 24 8. By this order, we clarify the process that the Commission will follow, effective immediately, upon receiving a referral for follow- up contacts where an Indian tribe or NHO has not responded to two reasonable and good faith contacts initiated by the Applicant. Under current practice, once an Applicant seeks Commission guidance, Commission staff is making multiple efforts to contact the Indian tribe or NHO by telephone, e- mail, and/ or letter on an ongoing basis and for an indefinite period of time. We now clarify that, consistent with requirements of the NPA, for future referrals the Commission staff will promptly contact the Indian tribe’s or NHO’s designated cultural resources representative by letter and/ or e- mail to respectfully request that the Indian tribe or NHO inform the Commission and the Applicant within 20 calendar days as to its interest or lack of interest in participating in the Section 106 review. 25 In addition, staff will attempt to contact the potentially affected tribes and NHOs by telephone both to alert them that such a letter and/ or e-mail has been sent, and to advise them that they should contact Commission staff if they do not receive our letter and/ or email and should contact the Commission and the Applicant if they wish to express an interest in a particular site. 26 Staff will also inform the Applicant when this letter or e- mail is sent, either by copying it on the correspondence or by other effective means. If the Indian tribe or NHO does not respond within 20 days of the date of this letter or e- mail, 27 the Applicant’s pre- construction obligations under the Nationwide Agreement are discharged with respect to that Indian tribe or NHO. If the Indian tribe or NHO responds that it is interested in participating within the 20- day period, the Applicant must involve it in the review as set forth 21 Id., § IV. F. 4. 22 Id., § IV. F. 5. 23 We note that this process allows the Indian tribe or NHO a longer opportunity to respond than is recommended for USET’s member Tribes under the USET Best Practices. See USET Best Practices, §§ III. B (Tribe should respond to initial contact within 14 days), III. C (Applicant may ask the Commission to initiate government- to- government consultation if Tribe does not respond to second contact within seven days). 24 Based on staff experience, requests can be processed most efficiently if the subject line includes: a) the words “Referral to Commission”; b) the TCNS file number, if used; and c) the Applicant’s name. It is helpful for the text of the e- mail to include: a) Applicant’s contact name and e- mail address; b) tower street address, city, county, and state; c) complete and correct names of the federally recognized Indian tribe( s) or NHO( s) that have not responded to the Applicant’s contacts (as found on TCNS); d) date the Applicant first notified each Indian tribe or NHO; and e) dates of any follow- up inquiries. 25 If the Indian tribe or NHO has not designated a cultural resources representative to the Commission, this communication will be sent to the Tribal Leader. To avoid undue burdens on tribal and NHO representatives and implement a practical process, Commission staff may aggregate a number of referrals into one communication to the appropriate representative. 26 If Commission staff does not successfully contact the designated representative in the telephone call, it will attempt to phone the central administrative office of the Indian tribe or NHO. If staff has aggregated a number of referrals into one letter and/ or e- mail, it need not make separate calls for each tower referral, but may instead make one call to alert the Indian tribe or NHO to the communication. An Indian tribe or NHO is free to indicate to Commission staff that it would prefer not to receive such phone calls. Staff efforts to contact the Indian tribes and NHOs by phone do not affect the running of the 20- day period set out in the letter and/ or e- mail for an expression of interest in a particular tower site. 27 If the 20 th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the time period is extended until the next business day. See 47 C. F. R. § 1.4( e)( 1),( j). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 5 in the NPA. 28 9. We conclude that this process satisfies the Commission’s obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts to identify Indian tribes and NHOs that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking, as specified under the Nationwide Agreement and as required under the NHPA and the rules of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 29 At the conclusion of the process specified herein, the Indian tribe or NHO will have had a total of at least 60 days to respond to at least two contacts by the Applicant (either directly or through the Commission via TCNS) and one contact by the Commission staff made to the official whom the Indian tribe or NHO has designated to receive such contacts. Moreover, in order to respond to these contacts, the Indian tribe or NHO need not evaluate the effect of the proposed construction on historic properties, but need only indicate whether there is a possibility of an effect on historic properties of cultural and religious significance to it such that it wishes to participate in the review. We believe that, in this context, the process as a whole is reasonable and is consistent with our government- to- government relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes. Hence, it satisfies the requirements of the Nationwide Agreement. 10. We recognize that many sites are currently pending in which an Indian tribe’s or NHO’s failure to respond to initial contacts has been referred to the Commission for resolution. While we conclude that the process set forth above satisfies the requirements of the Nationwide Agreement and will be followed going forward, it is not the only process that could do so. For those tower sites referred to the Commission by Applicants before September 10, 2005, we find that the public interest would be best served by declaring the Applicant’s obligations with respect to those Indian tribes and/ or NHOs under Section IV of the Nationwide Agreement to be complete. We do so for several reasons. First, virtually all of the initial contacts in the pending referral cases were made through the Commission’s TCNS system. These contacts thus came in the form of a communication directly from the Commission to the Indian tribe or NHO that was sent to the representative designated by the Indian tribe or NHO, at the address the representative had selected. Second, in many instances over the past several months, the Commission’s staff has already made efforts to contact Indian tribes and NHOs. For example, over a period of several weeks, the staff may have made several attempts by telephone to contact an Indian tribe or NHO and/ or sent a letter or e- mail. We also note the large number of tower site referrals currently pending before us solely because of a lack of response as well as the impending close of the construction season over much of the country as winter approaches. Accordingly, we find that, for those sites referred to the Commission before September 10 th because of a failure of one or more Indian tribes and/ or NHOs to respond to contacts seeking an expression of interest or lack of interest, and which remain pending, the necessary actions under Section IV of the Nationwide Agreement have been completed and the Applicant may proceed. 30 For those pending matters that have been referred to the Commission on or after September 10, 2005, the Bureau shall send forthwith the letter and/ or e- mail discussed in paragraph 8 above. 11. Finally, we emphasize that Section IX of the Nationwide Agreement imposes independent obligations on an Applicant when a previously unidentified site that may be a historic property, including an archeological property, is discovered during construction or after the completion of review. In such instances, the Applicant must cease construction and promptly notify, among others, any potentially affected Indian tribe 28 In the event an Indian tribe or NHO responds only to the Commission and not to the Applicant, Commission staff will promptly inform the Applicant of the response. In most cases we expect that staff will inform the Applicant on the same day the response is received by the Commission. In the event of a slight delay in the Commission's processes, however, the Applicant must comply with a timely request by the Indian tribe or NHO when it receives notice of that request. 29 See 16 U. S. C. §§ 470a( d)( 6); 36 C. F. R. § 800.3( f)( 2). 30 See attached list in Appendix. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 6 or NHO. 31 An Indian tribe’s or NHO’s failure to express interest in participating in pre- construction review of an undertaking does not necessarily mean it is not interested in archeological properties or human remains that may inadvertently be discovered during construction. Accordingly, an Applicant is still required to notify any potentially affected Indian tribe or NHO of any such finds pursuant to Section IX or other applicable law. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4( i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 154( i), and Sections 1.2 and 1.1307( a)( 4) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 1.2, 1.1307( a)( 4), that this Declaratory Ruling IS ADOPTED effective immediately. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 31 Nationwide Agreement, § IX. A. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 7 APPENDIX TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 462 9/ 8/ 2005 Cave City KY 566 8/ 9/ 2005 Eau Claire WI 585 5/ 9/ 2005 Lancaster Co. PA 586 5/ 18/ 2005 Chester Co. PA 587 5/ 18/ 2005 Chester Co. PA 596 5/ 19/ 2005 Luzerne Co. PA 597 5/ 19/ 2005 Lackawanna Co. PA 598 5/ 18/ 2005 Newark DE 599 5/ 18/ 2005 Chester Co. PA 600 5/ 18/ 2005 Monroe Co. PA 614 5/ 18/ 2005 Sussex Co. DE 615 5/ 11/ 2005 N. Hampton Co. PA 616 5/ 9/ 2005 Montgomery Co. PA 617 5/ 18/ 2005 Sussex Co. DE 618 5/ 9/ 2005 Columbia Co. PA 619 5/ 9/ 2005 Columbia County PA 621 5/ 18/ 2005 Ocean Co. NJ 624 5/ 9/ 2005 Chester County PA 626 6/ 8/ 2005 Fort Jackson SC 627 6/ 8/ 2005 Saluda SC 634 6/ 8/ 2005 Fort Jackson SC 635 4/ 28/ 2005 Richland Co. SC 636 4/ 28/ 2005 Darlington SC 637 4/ 28/ 2005 Florence Co. SC 638 4/ 28/ 2005 Richland Co. SC 639 4/ 28/ 2005 Ridgeville SC 640 4/ 28/ 2005 Saluda Co. SC 641 5/ 9/ 2005 Lancaster Co. PA 648 5/ 18/ 2005 Sacramento CA 649 5/ 18/ 2005 Stanislaus Co. CA 658 5/ 18/ 2005 Sonoma Co. CA 661 6/ 20/ 2005 Clint TX 666 6/ 20/ 2005 El Paso TX 693 5/ 18/ 2005 National City CA 694 6/ 30/ 2005 Carlisle MA 708 5/ 18/ 2005 Petaluma CA 729 8/ 18/ 2005 Victor ID 746 5/ 18/ 2005 Carbon Co. PA 747 5/ 9/ 2005 Cumberland City PA 754 7/ 5/ 2005 Watonga OK 758 5/ 17/ 2005 Barren Co. KY 763 6/ 7/ 2005 Felton PA 764 6/ 7/ 2005 East Berlin PA 770 5/ 9/ 2005 New Castle County DE 771 5/ 9/ 2005 Camden County NJ 775 5/ 9/ 2005 Bucks County PA 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 8 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 777 5/ 9/ 2005 New Castle County DE 779 5/ 25/ 2005 Washington Co. NE 782 5/ 9/ 2005 New Castle County DE 784 5/ 9/ 2005 New Castle County DE 785 6/ 30/ 2005 Sherwood AR 786 5/ 9/ 2005 New Castle County DE 787 5/ 23/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 788 6/ 30/ 2005 Little Rock AR 789 5/ 20/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 790 5/ 20/ 2005 Holtville CA 791 6/ 6/ 2005 Dan Diego Co. CA 794 6/ 10/ 2005 Laddonia (Audrain) MO 796 5/ 26/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 797 5/ 20/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 798 5/ 26/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 804 6/ 28/ 2005 Cheyenne Wells CO 809 5/ 20/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 830 4/ 27/ 2005 Fulton Co. GA 836 5/ 19/ 2005 Placer Co. CA 839 5/ 23/ 2005 Sacramento Co. CA 856 7/ 26/ 2005 Cortland MN 857 7/ 26/ 2005 Jasper MN 859 8/ 18/ 2005 Star ID 861 6/ 1/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 867 6/ 30/ 2005 North Little Rock AR 875 7/ 1/ 2005 Scott AR 876 7/ 1/ 2005 Brinkley AR 877 7/ 1/ 2005 Brinkley AR 881 7/ 25/ 2005 Waynesboro MS 883 7/ 8/ 2005 Paris TX 884 6/ 7/ 2005 McKinney TX 885 8/ 19/ 2005 Lake City MN 887 5/ 16/ 2005 Wilcox Co. GA 888 5/ 16/ 2005 Dodge Co. GA 890 7/ 29/ 2005 Lamb Co. TX 891 7/ 29/ 2005 Parmer Co. TX 892 7/ 29/ 2005 Parmer Co. TX 902 5/ 11/ 2005 Lackawanna Co. PA 904 5/ 26/ 2005 San Diego Co. CA 908 7/ 15/ 2005 Birmingham AL 918 6/ 16/ 2005 Water Valley MS 919 5/ 11/ 2005 Wanblee SD 922 5/ 11/ 2005 Armour SD 923 5/ 11/ 2005 Lennox SD 925 5/ 11/ 2005 Bryant SD 926 5/ 11/ 2005 Eureka SD 929 6/ 30/ 2005 Little Rock AR 930 6/ 30/ 2005 Little Rock AR 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 9 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 950 6/ 30/ 2005 Little Rock AR 954 7/ 7/ 2005 Fort Meyers FL 955 7/ 1/ 2005 Lakeland FL 957 7/ 12/ 2005 Arcadia FL 959 7/ 27/ 2005 Redwood City CA 960 7/ 5/ 2005 Lakeland FL 961 7/ 7/ 2005 Lakeland FL 962 7/ 1/ 2005 Fort Meade FL 964 6/ 16/ 2005 Bruce MS 965 6/ 16/ 2005 Gore Springs MS 966 8/ 31/ 2005 Milwaukee WI 967 6/ 13/ 2005 Williamstown NJ 973 6/ 21/ 2005 Springfield Township PA 974 6/ 13/ 2005 Burlington Township NJ 976 7/ 1/ 2005 Auburndale FL 977 7/ 1/ 2005 Winterhaven FL 979 7/ 1/ 2005 Lake Wells FL 981 7/ 1/ 2005 Bartow FL 984 8/ 23/ 2005 Graceville FL 986 5/ 27/ 2005 Cotton Co. OK 989 5/ 26/ 2005 Sidney OH 993 5/ 11/ 2005 Lancaster County PA 995 7/ 7/ 2005 Provincetown MA 996 7/ 14/ 2005 York AL 998 6/ 14/ 2005 Centreville AL 999 8/ 15/ 2005 Buckley IL 1000 9/ 6/ 2005 Clifton IL 1002 8/ 11/ 2005 Gilman IL 1003 8/ 16/ 2005 La Moille IL 1004 9/ 6/ 2005 Hennepin IL 1005 8/ 11/ 2005 Ladd IL 1006 8/ 15/ 2005 Bureau IL 1008 8/ 11/ 2005 Wyanet IL 1009 9/ 6/ 2005 Mineral Il 1011 9/ 7/ 2005 South Kappa IL 1012 5/ 16/ 2005 Early Co. GA 1014 9/ 6/ 2005 El Paso Il 1016 8/ 11/ 2005 Tonica IL 1019 8/ 11/ 2005 Troy Grove IL 1022 8/ 11/ 2005 Mendota IL 1024 8/ 11/ 2005 Wenona IL 1025 8/ 11/ 2005 Minonk IL 1027 9/ 6/ 2005 Fairbury IL 1028 8/ 15/ 2005 Chatworth IL 1029 9/ 6/ 2005 Chenoa IL 1030 8/ 15/ 2005 Odell IL 1031 8/ 11/ 2005 Grand Ridge IL 1032 8/ 16/ 2005 Streator IL 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 10 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 1033 8/ 11/ 2005 Ransom IL 1034 8/ 11/ 2005 Marseilles IL 1036 8/ 11/ 2005 Utica IL 1046 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1047 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1048 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1050 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1051 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1057 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1058 5/ 19/ 2005 Tuscaloosa Co. AL 1059 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1060 5/ 24/ 2005 Macomb Co. MI 1061 7/ 7/ 2005 Spokane WA 1063 7/ 25/ 2005 Lucedale MS 1072 6/ 28/ 2005 Valley Forge PA 1074 5/ 11/ 2005 Pennsylvania PA 1076 6/ 28/ 2005 Cherry Hill NJ 1077 6/ 28/ 2005 Allentown PA 1080 6/ 28/ 2005 Philadelphia PA 1081 6/ 28/ 2005 Philadelphia PA 1082 7/ 22/ 2005 Marlton NJ 1083 6/ 20/ 2005 El Cajon CA 1084 6/ 17/ 2005 San Diego CA 1087 7/ 26/ 2005 Cookeville TN 1089 7/ 27/ 2005 Johnson City TN 1094 6/ 28/ 2005 New Hanover PA 1095 6/ 28/ 2005 Lansdale PA 1097 6/ 28/ 2005 Bethlehem PA 1098 6/ 28/ 2005 Allentown PA 1099 6/ 28/ 2005 West Chester PA 1100 6/ 30/ 2005 Doddridge AR 1101 5/ 11/ 2005 Mercer County NJ 1102 7/ 12/ 2005 Port Charlotte FL 1103 7/ 7/ 2005 Port Charlotte FL 1104 7/ 12/ 2005 Venice FL 1110 7/ 7/ 2005 Port Charlotte FL 1116 7/ 1/ 2005 San Carlos Park FL 1117 7/ 1/ 2005 St. Petersbrug FL 1118 6/ 16/ 2005 Central McComb MS 1121 7/ 26/ 2005 Fernley NV 1124 6/ 16/ 2005 Beaver Meadows PA 1125 8/ 19/ 2005 Durand WI 1128 6/ 16/ 2005 Elizabethville PA 1129 7/ 8/ 2005 Northumberland PA 1130 6/ 30/ 2005 Pine Bluff AR 1132 6/ 20/ 2005 Pine Bluff AR 1133 6/ 20/ 2005 Biscoe AR 1139 8/ 22/ 2005 Pomona CA 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 11 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 1140 5/ 16/ 2005 Gwinnett Co. GA 1148 6/ 21/ 2005 Jacksonville FL 1153 8/ 31/ 2005 Smyrna TN 1158 6/ 22/ 2005 Jefferson Davis Co. MS 1162 6/ 8/ 2005 Lee Co. NC 1171 6/ 22/ 2005 Hurley NM 1173 6/ 22/ 2005 Hurley NM 1174 6/ 24/ 2005 Silver City NM 1179 7/ 1/ 2005 Welch MN 1180 6/ 21/ 2005 Chicago IL 1181 6/ 22/ 2005 Chicago IL 1183 6/ 21/ 2005 Indianapolis IN 1185 6/ 22/ 2005 Cave City KY 1188 8/ 22/ 2005 Eubank KY 1193 5/ 19/ 2005 Luzerne Co. PA 1194 5/ 19/ 2005 Cumberland Co. PA 1195 5/ 26/ 2005 Montgomery Co. TX 1201 6/ 10/ 2005 Plumerville (Conway) AR 1209 7/ 5/ 2005 Polk City FL 1213 7/ 12/ 2005 LA. 475 Rambin Rd. LA 1214 7/ 12/ 2005 Jennings LA 1215 7/ 12/ 2005 Evadale TX 1216 7/ 12/ 2005 Gibsonton FL 1218 7/ 12/ 2005 Beaumont MS 1219 7/ 5/ 2005 Lakeland FL 1223 7/ 26/ 2005 Chico CA 1225 7/ 29/ 2005 Vernon Co. MO 1229 5/ 27/ 2005 Tulsa Co. OK 1231 6/ 24/ 2005 San Diego CA 1236 7/ 29/ 2005 Richmond KS 1244 7/ 13/ 2005 Pyland MS 1245 7/ 13/ 2005 Calhoun City MS 1249 5/ 16/ 2005 Bartow Co. GA 1267 6/ 10/ 2005 Newtown Square PA 1268 7/ 5/ 2005 Jamestown RI 1269 9/ 6/ 2005 South Macomb IL 1270 7/ 19/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1271 7/ 8/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1272 5/ 27/ 2005 Virginia IL 1273 7/ 14/ 2005 Klamath Falls OR 1274 7/ 1/ 2005 Yakima WA 1286 7/ 1/ 2005 Lizella GA 1287 7/ 15/ 2005 Phoenix AZ 1288 7/ 15/ 2005 Mesa AZ 1289 6/ 10/ 2005 Jefferson City (Cole) MO 1292 5/ 17/ 2005 Tignall GA 1293 8/ 11/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1294 7/ 5/ 2005 Monclova OH 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 12 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 1295 6/ 13/ 2005 Mullica Hill NJ 1296 6/ 13/ 2005 Wilmington DE 1297 6/ 13/ 2005 Glassboro NJ 1300 8/ 17/ 2005 New Buffalo MI 1309 7/ 5/ 2005 Fresno CA 1311 6/ 6/ 2005 Fresno Co. CA 1312 6/ 24/ 2005 Fresno CA 1313 6/ 24/ 2005 Fresno CA 1314 5/ 26/ 2005 Harlin Co. TX 1316 7/ 11/ 2005 Virginville PA 1317 6/ 16/ 2005 White Haven PA 1318 7/ 20/ 2005 Atlanta GA 1321 7/ 14/ 2005 Wenatchee WA 1331 7/ 20/ 2005 Smyrna GA 1338 8/ 15/ 2005 Lake Placid FL 1339 7/ 7/ 2005 Plant City FL 1343 5/ 17/ 2005 Greensboro GA 1344 5/ 17/ 2005 Greensboro GA 1347 5/ 26/ 2005 Elk Grove CA 1349 7/ 20/ 2005 Lithonia GA 1350 6/ 30/ 2005 Little Rock AR 1351 6/ 16/ 2005 Petaluma CA 1357 6/ 30/ 2005 Troy GA 1359 8/ 16/ 2005 Cedar Bluff AL 1361 7/ 8/ 2005 Bethleham PA 1362 6/ 24/ 2005 Hollister CA 1364 7/ 1/ 2005 Camilla AL 1368 7/ 25/ 2005 Quitman MS 1369 7/ 25/ 2005 Citronelle AL 1370 7/ 25/ 2005 Toomsuba MS 1385 7/ 21/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1407 7/ 14/ 2005 Manson WA 1408 7/ 1/ 2005 Calexico CA 1412 6/ 30/ 2005 Troy AL 1413 7/ 22/ 2005 Rialto CA 1416 6/ 22/ 2005 Lancaster PA 1418 7/ 19/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1419 7/ 15/ 2005 Buckner AR 1420 7/ 15/ 2005 Lewisville AR 1422 8/ 8/ 2005 Vinton City LA 1423 7/ 12/ 2005 Crawford TX 1425 7/ 13/ 2005 Banner MS 1427 7/ 8/ 2005 Tulsa OK 1429 8/ 4/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1430 8/ 4/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1436 8/ 16/ 2005 Valley Mills TX 1437 8/ 17/ 2005 Little Rock AR 1451 8/ 16/ 2005 Franklin Township PA 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 13 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 1453 6/ 21/ 2005 Crystal Springs MS 1454 6/ 22/ 2005 Brookhaven MS 1455 8/ 4/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1456 7/ 8/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1461 7/ 13/ 2005 Ash Fork AZ 1467 7/ 6/ 2005 Magnolia MS 1468 7/ 6/ 2005 Wesson MS 1469 7/ 6/ 2005 Brookhaven MS 1470 7/ 6/ 2005 Bodue Chitto MS 1471 7/ 6/ 2005 Summit MS 1473 7/ 15/ 2005 Brightstar AR 1477 8/ 3/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1478 6/ 8/ 2005 Downingtown PA 1482 7/ 11/ 2005 Valley Mills TX 1485 7/ 13/ 2005 Calhoun City MS 1506 7/ 25/ 2005 Archbold OH 1508 8/ 1/ 2005 Stryker OH 1515 7/ 26/ 2005 Union City CA 1520 8/ 17/ 2005 Little Rock AR 1521 5/ 19/ 2005 Madison Co. GA 1522 5/ 24/ 2005 Franklin Co. GA 1528 6/ 6/ 2005 Franklin Co. GA 1536 5/ 27/ 2005 Canden Co. NJ 1541 7/ 13/ 2005 Louisville MS 1542 7/ 13/ 2005 Booneville MS 1567 7/ 19/ 2005 Chicago IL 1569 9/ 6/ 2005 Long Beach CA 1572 9/ 8/ 2005 Springville CA 1576 5/ 27/ 2005 Woodland CA 1577 6/ 16/ 2005 Howell NJ 1581 6/ 16/ 2005 Sparks NV 1584 6/ 30/ 2005 Fresno CA 1585 6/ 30/ 2005 Clovis CA 1586 7/ 5/ 2005 San Rafael CA 1587 7/ 5/ 2005 Napa CA 1598 6/ 30/ 2005 Glen Ellen CA 1603 6/ 30/ 2005 Porterville CA 1604 6/ 30/ 2005 Carthage MO 1613 6/ 27/ 2005 York PA 1622 8/ 22/ 2005 Mabelvale AR 1628 7/ 1/ 2005 San Diego CA 1631 8/ 25/ 2005 Hebo OR 1632 8/ 25/ 2005 Curry Co. OR 1633 8/ 24/ 2005 Mount Angel OR 1635 8/ 25/ 2005 Gresham OR 1641 6/ 30/ 2005 Lakeside CA 1642 8/ 16/ 2005 Stanford IL 1643 8/ 11/ 2005 McLean Co. IL 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 14 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 1644 8/ 11/ 2005 Little York IL 1646 8/ 11/ 2005 Gladstone IL 1647 8/ 16/ 2005 Stronghurst IL 1648 8/ 11/ 2005 Elmwood IL 1649 8/ 15/ 2005 Biggsville IL 1650 8/ 11/ 2005 Joy IL 1651 8/ 16/ 2005 Pekin IL 1655 6/ 10/ 2005 Libertyville IL 1656 8/ 16/ 2005 Duncan TX 1658 7/ 14/ 2005 Waterville WA 1665 7/ 20/ 2005 Kennesaw GA 1666 7/ 15/ 2005 Dumas AR 1671 7/ 5/ 2005 Hillsboro OH 1672 7/ 5/ 2005 Union City OH 1674 7/ 5/ 2005 Lancaster OH 1675 7/ 5/ 2005 Powell OH 1681 8/ 25/ 2005 Beverton OR 1683 8/ 25/ 2005 Hubbard OR 1693 7/ 15/ 2005 Texarkana AR 1694 7/ 5/ 2005 New Carlisle OH 1695 7/ 5/ 2005 Fort Recovery OH 1698 7/ 15/ 2005 Ozan AR 1699 7/ 15/ 2005 Naples TX 1702 6/ 1/ 2005 Trego WI 1704 7/ 26/ 2005 Antioch CA 1729 6/ 1/ 2005 Fannin Co. GA 1735 5/ 27/ 2005 Lackawanna Co. PA 1753 7/ 14/ 2005 Alexander AR 1755 7/ 14/ 2005 DeValls Bluff AR 1757 8/ 22/ 2005 Benton AR 1760 8/ 16/ 2005 Lake Texoma TX 1766 7/ 13/ 2005 Tuscon AZ 1768 7/ 20/ 2005 Houston TX 1772 9/ 7/ 2005 Bremer County IA 1780 7/ 25/ 2005 Tylertown MS 1782 7/ 12/ 2005 Duchamp LA 1792 7/ 6/ 2005 Canyon Lake CA 1793 7/ 6/ 2005 Riverside CA 1798 7/ 12/ 2005 Pottsboro TX 1799 6/ 30/ 2005 Nacogdoches TX 1807 7/ 13/ 2005 Riverside CA 1809 6/ 30/ 2005 Arlington TX 1813 7/ 20/ 2005 North Las Vegas NV 1814 8/ 1/ 2005 Norht Las Vegas NV 1817 6/ 30/ 2005 Pearsall TX 1818 8/ 4/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1823 7/ 19/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1826 6/ 30/ 2005 Jefferson City MO 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 15 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 1827 6/ 30/ 2005 Crocker MO 1831 7/ 26/ 2005 Perry KS 1846 6/ 1/ 2005 Henry Co. GA 1850 7/ 26/ 2005 Pine AZ 1864 8/ 10/ 2005 Anaheim CA 1871 7/ 6/ 2005 Canton MS 1872 7/ 6/ 2005 Jackson MS 1875 6/ 7/ 2005 Baldwin Co. GA 1892 7/ 29/ 2005 Hempstead AR 1893 7/ 15/ 2005 Waldo AR 1894 7/ 12/ 2005 Pottsboro TX 1905 7/ 12/ 2005 Allen TX 1906 7/ 12/ 2005 Nocona TX 1907 8/ 4/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1908 8/ 15/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 1919 8/ 9/ 2005 Columbus OH 1920 6/ 6/ 2005 Fannin Co. GA 1921 6/ 8/ 2005 Atlanta GA 1931 6/ 30/ 2005 Miami FL 1933 6/ 16/ 2005 Grayson Co. TX 1934 7/ 18/ 2005 Clifton CO 1945 7/ 22/ 2005 San Clemente CA 1946 7/ 22/ 2005 San Marcos CA 1954 6/ 14/ 2005 Plymouth WI 1955 7/ 28/ 2005 Alameda CA 1956 7/ 25/ 2005 Louin MS 1965 7/ 12/ 2005 Ringgold TX 1966 7/ 12/ 2005 McKinney TX 1967 7/ 12/ 2005 Fort Stockton TX 1970 7/ 5/ 2005 Ashville OH 1971 7/ 13/ 2005 Vallejo CA 1973 7/ 26/ 2005 Manchester MA 1974 6/ 30/ 2005 Harvard MA 1975 7/ 6/ 2005 Ontario CA 1977 6/ 14/ 2005 Nekoosa WI 1988 7/ 6/ 2005 Big Bear Lake CA 1992 7/ 22/ 2005 Los Angeles CA 1993 7/ 22/ 2005 Garden Grove CA 1994 7/ 22/ 2005 Mission Viejo CA 1995 7/ 22/ 2005 Fountain Valley CA 1997 8/ 11/ 2005 Anaheim CA 1998 7/ 22/ 2005 Excondido CA 2002 7/ 11/ 2005 Greeley CO 2003 7/ 8/ 2005 Colorado Springs CO 2004 7/ 18/ 2005 Littleton CO 2024 7/ 22/ 2005 Torrance CA 2025 7/ 22/ 2005 San Pedro CA 2026 7/ 22/ 2005 San Marcos CA 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 16 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 2027 6/ 23/ 2005 Jakin GA 2028 6/ 23/ 2005 Norman Park GA 2035 9/ 8/ 2005 Carroll County IA 2040 9/ 6/ 2005 Beulah ND 2041 9/ 8/ 2005 Bottineau County ND 2043 9/ 8/ 2005 Dakota County MN 2045 9/ 8/ 2005 Goodhue County MN 2046 9/ 8/ 2005 Hennepin County MN 2047 9/ 8/ 2005 Pennington County SD 2048 9/ 8/ 2005 Pennington County SD 2049 9/ 6/ 2005 Sioux Falls SD 2050 9/ 8/ 2005 Ipswich SD 2051 9/ 7/ 2005 Wayne County MO 2052 9/ 7/ 2005 Perry County MO 2053 9/ 8/ 2005 Richland MO 2054 9/ 8/ 2005 St. Louis MO 2055 9/ 7/ 2005 Moniteau County MO 2061 8/ 31/ 2005 Sweet Springs MO 2062 8/ 31/ 2005 Nelson MO 2064 8/ 31/ 2005 Houstonia MO 2065 8/ 31/ 2005 Marshall MO 2066 8/ 31/ 2005 Higginsville MO 2067 8/ 31/ 2005 Hughesville MO 2068 9/ 6/ 2005 Sedalia MO 2069 6/ 30/ 2005 Locka FL 2070 6/ 30/ 2005 Miami FL 2071 7/ 15/ 2005 Fallston MD 2093 6/ 8/ 2005 Dothan AL 2094 6/ 8/ 2005 Delta AL 2095 6/ 8/ 2005 Dothan AL 2097 7/ 11/ 2005 North Little Rock AR 2098 7/ 11/ 2005 Sherwood AR 2099 7/ 11/ 2005 North Little Rock AR 2100 7/ 11/ 2005 Little Rock AR 2101 7/ 14/ 2005 Little Rock AR 2102 7/ 11/ 2005 North Little Rock AR 2106 6/ 10/ 2005 McIntrye GA 2107 6/ 10/ 2005 Sparta GA 2108 6/ 10/ 2005 Sandersville GA 2109 6/ 23/ 2005 Brinson GA 2110 8/ 31/ 2005 La Quinta CA 2112 7/ 7/ 2005 Sandiego CA 2140 6/ 21/ 2005 Elk Grove Village IL 2170 7/ 14/ 2005 Newport Beach CA 2171 7/ 14/ 2005 Newport Beach CA 2172 7/ 21/ 2005 San Clemente CA 2173 7/ 14/ 2005 Newport Beach CA 2174 7/ 21/ 2005 San Diego CA 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 17 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 2175 7/ 22/ 2005 San Diego CA 2176 7/ 21/ 2005 Escondido CA 2177 7/ 21/ 2005 Escondido CA 2186 7/ 7/ 2005 Vista CA 2187 7/ 5/ 2005 Marysville CA 2188 7/ 5/ 2005 Clovis CA 2190 7/ 5/ 2005 Fresno CA 2192 7/ 6/ 2005 Morro Bay CA 2213 8/ 5/ 2005 Ontario CA 2216 7/ 13/ 2005 Clark Summit PA 2217 7/ 13/ 2005 Northampton PA 2218 7/ 12/ 2005 Haslett TX 2224 7/ 11/ 2005 Alexander AR 2228 7/ 8/ 2005 Verona MO 2230 7/ 12/ 2005 Pittsburg TX 2235 8/ 5/ 2005 Salford PA 2237 6/ 28/ 2005 Glenn Mills PA 2238 8/ 5/ 2005 Coatesville PA 2240 7/ 13/ 2005 Bath PA 2241 7/ 25/ 2005 Benoit MS 2242 7/ 26/ 2005 Cresson TX 2243 7/ 8/ 2005 Lewisville TX 2247 7/ 29/ 2005 San Diego CA 2248 7/ 8/ 2005 Sherwood AR 2256 7/ 26/ 2005 Dayton TN 2261 8/ 18/ 2005 Midway GA 2277 7/ 20/ 2005 Cumming GA 2291 8/ 16/ 2005 North Bergen NJ 2292 8/ 16/ 2005 Kearny NJ 2293 8/ 16/ 2005 Jersey City NJ 2301 7/ 26/ 2005 Clay MO 2303 8/ 29/ 2005 Kerman CA 2305 8/ 8/ 2005 Firth NE 2315 9/ 6/ 2005 Willis TX 2316 7/ 26/ 2005 Calhoun MO 2317 7/ 26/ 2005 Clinton MO 2319 7/ 12/ 2005 Crawford TX 2320 7/ 5/ 2005 Redding CA 2321 7/ 5/ 2005 Reno NV 2322 7/ 5/ 2005 Sacramento CA 2323 7/ 5/ 2005 Roseville CA 2325 7/ 14/ 2005 Davis CA 2328 6/ 10/ 2005 Tuscumbia AL 2342 8/ 1/ 2005 Madera CA 2348 6/ 28/ 2005 Atlanta GA 2353 7/ 5/ 2005 Silver Spring NV 2354 7/ 5/ 2005 Dayton NV 2356 7/ 26/ 2005 Albuquerque NM 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 18 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 2358 6/ 14/ 2005 Lesington AL 2359 6/ 14/ 2005 Vina AL 2367 8/ 11/ 2005 North Little Rock AR 2368 6/ 14/ 2005 Weedowee AL 2375 7/ 5/ 2005 Bellefontaine OH 2376 7/ 26/ 2005 Arlington TX 2391 7/ 5/ 2005 East Sparta OH 2392 7/ 5/ 2005 Louiseville OH 2396 7/ 25/ 2005 Mobile AL 2397 9/ 8/ 2005 Nowell CA 2399 9/ 6/ 2005 Rialto CA 2417 6/ 20/ 2005 Atlanta GA 2419 6/ 27/ 2005 Fort Jackson SC 2440 9/ 9/ 2005 Ontario CA 2444 8/ 16/ 2005 Philadelphia PA 2445 7/ 13/ 2005 Dingmans Ferry PA 2446 8/ 16/ 2005 Plumsteadville PA 2447 8/ 16/ 2005 Sharon Hill PA 2454 9/ 8/ 2005 Oxnard CA 2456 9/ 8/ 2005 Los Angeles CA 2457 9/ 7/ 2005 Los Angeles CA 2458 9/ 7/ 2005 Los Angeles CA 2460 9/ 8/ 2005 Atwater CA 2462 7/ 5/ 2005 Sacramento CA 2464 6/ 15/ 2005 Atlanta GA 2466 9/ 6/ 2005 Lake Elsinore CA 2467 9/ 8/ 2005 Dixon CA 2468 9/ 8/ 2005 South Lake Tahoe CA 2472 6/ 20/ 2005 Hayneville AL 2481 6/ 21/ 2005 Clarkston GA 2484 7/ 5/ 2005 North Canton OH 2487 7/ 26/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 2490 9/ 1/ 2005 Senoia GA 2496 8/ 16/ 2005 Wellsboro PA 2498 8/ 16/ 2005 New Albany PA 2499 8/ 10/ 2005 Newark Valley NY 2512 8/ 25/ 2005 Somerset/ Pulaski County KY 2515 7/ 14/ 2005 Escondido CA 2516 7/ 29/ 2005 San Diego CA 2518 7/ 29/ 2005 Owaneco IL 2519 7/ 29/ 2005 Strasburg IL 2521 6/ 20/ 2005 Dawsonville GA 2523 8/ 5/ 2005 Phoenixville PA 2524 8/ 5/ 2005 King of Prussia PA 2525 8/ 5/ 2005 Newark DE 2527 7/ 29/ 2005 Cassville MO 2541 8/ 31/ 2005 Phoenix AZ 2544 8/ 18/ 2005 Friant CA 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 19 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 2632 7/ 20/ 2005 Laramie Co. WY 2633 7/ 20/ 2005 Laramie Co. WY 2634 7/ 20/ 2005 Laramie Co. WY 2635 7/ 20/ 2005 Laramie Co. WY 2636 7/ 20/ 2005 Platte Co. WY 2637 7/ 20/ 2005 Platte Co. WY 2638 7/ 20/ 2005 Platte Co. WY 2639 7/ 20/ 2005 Cook Co. WY 2640 7/ 20/ 2005 Johnson Co. WY 2641 7/ 20/ 2005 Campbell Co. WY 2642 7/ 20/ 2005 Campbell Co. WY 2643 7/ 20/ 2005 Campbell Co. WY 2644 7/ 20/ 2005 Campbell Co. WY 2645 7/ 20/ 2005 Campbell Co. WY 2646 7/ 20/ 2005 Campbell Co. WY 2647 7/ 20/ 2005 Campbell Co. WY 2648 7/ 20/ 2005 Laramie Co. WY 2655 7/ 8/ 2005 Bloomsburg PA 2661 8/ 15/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 2672 7/ 8/ 2005 Boise ID 2677 7/ 8/ 2005 Boise ID 2678 7/ 8/ 2005 Boise ID 2679 7/ 8/ 2005 Nampa ID 2684 7/ 8/ 2005 Kuna ID 2696 7/ 5/ 2005 Grantville GA 2698 7/ 26/ 2005 Center TX 2707 8/ 24/ 2005 San Bernardino CA 2708 9/ 7/ 2005 Riverside CA 2720 8/ 17/ 2005 Medford OR 2726 8/ 17/ 2005 Terrabonne OR 2728 8/ 1/ 2005 McKinney TX 2736 7/ 19/ 2005 Miramar FL 2746 8/ 19/ 2005 Orlando FL 2747 6/ 27/ 2005 Louisville GA 2758 8/ 31/ 2005 La Moure ND 2761 7/ 5/ 2005 Stevens Point WI 2766 7/ 5/ 2005 Onalaska WI 2767 7/ 5/ 2005 Marshfield WI 2768 7/ 5/ 2005 LaCrosse WI 2773 8/ 22/ 2005 Zeeland MI 2774 7/ 5/ 2005 LaCrosse WI 2777 7/ 12/ 2005 Wedgefield SC 2785 7/ 1/ 2005 Tennille GA 2794 7/ 20/ 2005 El Cajon CA 2795 7/ 18/ 2005 El Cajon CA 2805 8/ 18/ 2005 San Diego CA 2818 8/ 22/ 2005 Wilson NC 2834 8/ 1/ 2005 Aurora CO 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 20 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 2839 7/ 28/ 2005 Madera Co. CA 2843 8/ 1/ 2005 Fresno CA 2844 7/ 29/ 2005 Washington AR 2846 7/ 29/ 2005 Blevins AR 2848 7/ 29/ 2005 Heber Springs AR 2849 8/ 18/ 2005 Queens NY 2852 7/ 12/ 2005 Monahans TX 2853 7/ 29/ 2005 Lockesburg AR 2855 8/ 1/ 2005 Red Oak X. 2856 8/ 1/ 2005 Atlanta GA 2861 7/ 28/ 2005 Madera CA 2878 7/ 21/ 2005 Galeton PA 2880 7/ 21/ 2005 Pot Allegany PA 2882 7/ 21/ 2005 Lawrenceville PA 2883 7/ 21/ 2005 Gwynedd PA 2885 8/ 1/ 2005 Chowchilla CA 2891 7/ 8/ 2005 Union SC 2893 9/ 6/ 2005 Kansas City KS 2897 8/ 17/ 2005 Olympia WA 2903 9/ 6/ 2005 Boonville MO 2908 8/ 19/ 2005 Depew OK 2910 9/ 6/ 2005 Coon Rapids MN 2913 8/ 15/ 2005 Nampa ID 2915 8/ 15/ 2005 Boise ID 2916 8/ 15/ 2005 Kuna ID 2920 8/ 1/ 2005 Madera CA 2943 9/ 8/ 2005 Black Hawk County IA 2946 7/ 8/ 2005 Nashport OH 2948 8/ 15/ 2005 Richmond IN 2953 8/ 26/ 2005 Oakland CA 2954 8/ 26/ 2005 San Jose CA 2963 8/ 19/ 2005 Dover FL 2968 8/ 16/ 2005 Pitkin Co. CO 2970 8/ 16/ 2005 New Raymer CO 2982 7/ 1/ 2005 Cumming GA 2985 7/ 8/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 2986 8/ 16/ 2005 Platte Co. WY 2987 8/ 15/ 2005 Parker CO 2993 8/ 16/ 2005 Ellijay GA 2996 8/ 1/ 2005 Littleton CO 3005 8/ 8/ 2005 Carbon Co. WY 3010 9/ 8/ 2005 Pittsburg CA 3014 9/ 8/ 2005 Stockton CA 3020 8/ 4/ 2005 Lewisville TX 3021 7/ 26/ 2005 Cookeville TN 3028 7/ 25/ 2005 Clarks Summit PA 3029 8/ 17/ 2005 Newton UT 3035 8/ 23/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 21 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 3038 8/ 23/ 2005 North Las Vegas NV 3040 8/ 15/ 2005 West Valley City UT 3041 8/ 15/ 2005 South Jordan UT 3043 8/ 15/ 2005 Farmington UT 3044 8/ 15/ 2005 Salt Lake City UT 3045 8/ 15/ 2005 Davis Co. UT 3047 8/ 23/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3050 8/ 15/ 2005 American Fork UT 3051 8/ 15/ 2005 Spanish Fork UT 3052 8/ 15/ 2005 LaVerkin UT 3055 9/ 7/ 2005 Salt Lake City UT 3057 9/ 7/ 2005 Salt Lake City UT 3061 8/ 15/ 2005 Richmond UT 3062 7/ 26/ 2005 Plato MN 3065 8/ 15/ 2005 Mendon UT 3066 8/ 1/ 2005 Swanton OH 3067 8/ 15/ 2005 Toquerville UT 3071 8/ 15/ 2005 Orem UT 3072 8/ 15/ 2005 Sandy UT 3073 8/ 15/ 2005 Provo UT 3075 8/ 15/ 2005 Providence UT 3081 7/ 26/ 2005 New Richland MN 3084 7/ 25/ 2005 Sun City AZ 3085 7/ 25/ 2005 Guadalupe AZ 3099 7/ 25/ 2005 Sun City AZ 3103 7/ 25/ 2005 Phoenix AZ 3107 7/ 25/ 2005 Arizona City AZ 3109 7/ 26/ 2005 Bellingham MN 3110 7/ 26/ 2005 Greenbush MN 3111 7/ 26/ 2005 Northwood ND 3112 7/ 26/ 2005 Cooperstown ND 3113 7/ 26/ 2005 Ellendale ND 3114 7/ 26/ 2005 Ashley ND 3117 7/ 26/ 2005 Elgin ND 3123 9/ 1/ 2005 Angels Camp CA 3125 8/ 2/ 2005 San Diego CA 3128 8/ 23/ 2005 Far Rockaway NY 3134 9/ 8/ 2005 Visalia CA 3141 8/ 8/ 2005 Sparks NV 3148 8/ 15/ 2005 Smithfield UT 3149 8/ 15/ 2005 Springfield OH 3161 8/ 15/ 2005 Meridian ID 3165 7/ 8/ 2005 Canton GA 3166 8/ 4/ 2005 Allentown PA 3167 7/ 12/ 2005 College Station TX 3168 7/ 12/ 2005 Conroe TX 3169 8/ 4/ 2005 Nottingham PA 3171 8/ 19/ 2005 Purcell OK 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 22 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 3174 9/ 9/ 2005 Oakland CA 3177 8/ 19/ 2005 Hugo OK 3180 9/ 9/ 2005 Philadelpia PA 3181 7/ 15/ 2005 Plantersville TX 3192 7/ 14/ 2005 La Crosse WI 3200 8/ 22/ 2005 Oconomowoc WI 3203 7/ 14/ 2005 Onalaska WI 3211 7/ 11/ 2005 Mr. Laurel Township NJ 3225 8/ 16/ 2005 Oakly UT 3233 8/ 11/ 2005 Erie CO 3236 8/ 3/ 2005 Fort Carson CO 3239 8/ 11/ 2005 Boulder CO 3254 9/ 1/ 2005 Alpharetta GA 3262 8/ 15/ 2005 Saint Paul MN 3266 8/ 15/ 2005 Lake elmo MN 3269 8/ 15/ 2005 Des Plaines IA 3280 9/ 8/ 2005 Vacaville CA 3299 8/ 3/ 2005 Ft. Carson CO 3300 8/ 11/ 2005 Lakewood CO 3309 8/ 17/ 2005 North Little Rock AR 3310 8/ 4/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3311 9/ 8/ 2005 San Francisco CA 3313 8/ 15/ 2005 Nampa ID 3315 9/ 8/ 2005 Sanger CA 3317 8/ 10/ 2005 Naples FL 3344 8/ 4/ 2005 King of Prussia PA 3346 8/ 11/ 2005 East Berlin PA 3366 9/ 6/ 2005 Wildomar CA 3367 7/ 19/ 2005 Easley SC 3369 7/ 21/ 2005 Union SC 3371 9/ 6/ 2005 Sun City CA 3378 9/ 6/ 2005 San Ramon CA 3427 8/ 26/ 2005 Santa Clara CA 3433 9/ 2/ 2005 Portland OR 3435 7/ 26/ 2005 Jenkinsville SC 3436 7/ 21/ 2005 Saluda SC 3439 7/ 21/ 2005 Jenkinsville SC 3441 7/ 21/ 2005 Chappells SC 3446 8/ 8/ 2005 St. Louis MS 3455 8/ 16/ 2005 Jersey City NJ 3458 7/ 21/ 2005 Longarm Mountain NC 3459 7/ 21/ 2005 Scaly Mountain NC 3462 7/ 21/ 2005 Marshall NC 3463 7/ 21/ 2005 Highlands NC 3466 8/ 17/ 2005 Hazelhurst MS 3474 9/ 2/ 2005 Palm Beach Co. FL 3500 8/ 12/ 2005 Palo Verde CA 3503 8/ 15/ 2005 San Luis Obispo CA 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 23 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 3510 7/ 11/ 2005 Eatanton GA 3515 7/ 11/ 2005 Eatanton GA 3529 9/ 2/ 2005 St. Cloud MN 3534 9/ 8/ 2005 Bakersfield CA 3537 9/ 8/ 2005 Fresno CA 3538 8/ 3/ 2005 Palmdale CA 3548 8/ 5/ 2005 Wellsboro PA 3552 9/ 1/ 2005 Gary IN 3557 8/ 24/ 2005 Littleton CO 3571 7/ 11/ 2005 Talbotton GA 3572 8/ 25/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3573 8/ 11/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3574 7/ 11/ 2005 Gay GA 3580 9/ 2/ 2005 Fort Pierce FL 3581 9/ 7/ 2005 Chesapeake VA 3586 8/ 17/ 2005 Colorado Springs CO 3592 9/ 2/ 2005 Pompano Beach FL 3602 8/ 24/ 2005 Layton UT 3612 9/ 2/ 2005 Miramar FL 3613 9/ 8/ 2005 Harrison County IN 3628 8/ 2/ 2005 Santa Barbara Co. CA 3635 7/ 26/ 2005 Bottineau ND 3640 8/ 22/ 2005 Kenosha WI 3648 7/ 14/ 2005 Cleveland GA 3664 9/ 6/ 2005 Hillsboro MO 3666 8/ 22/ 2005 Pleasant Prairie WI 3687 9/ 1/ 2005 Jenson Beach FL 3698 9/ 7/ 2005 Santa Barbara CA 3719 9/ 6/ 2005 Roseville CA 3720 8/ 10/ 2005 East Stroudsburg PA 3724 8/ 2/ 2005 Peyton CO 3725 8/ 5/ 2005 Colorado Springs CO 3731 9/ 1/ 2005 McDonough GA 3734 9/ 2/ 2005 Brandon OR 3753 8/ 24/ 2005 Port Orford OR 3757 8/ 25/ 2005 Clark OR 3769 8/ 23/ 2005 Winchester MA 3772 7/ 26/ 2005 Fairfield ND 3773 7/ 26/ 2005 Hettinger ND 3782 9/ 2/ 2005 Chandler AZ 3790 7/ 14/ 2005 Russellville AL 3815 9/ 2/ 2005 Trophy Club TX 3839 7/ 26/ 2005 Velva ND 3843 9/ 6/ 2005 Visalia CA 3845 7/ 29/ 2005 Stonington IL 3846 7/ 26/ 2005 Gackle ND 3850 7/ 29/ 2005 Oconee IL 3851 7/ 29/ 2005 Findlay IL 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 24 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 3853 7/ 29/ 2005 Dundee IL 3854 7/ 26/ 2005 Dickinson ND 3856 7/ 26/ 2005 Moorhead MN 3857 7/ 26/ 2005 Arenzville IL 3859 7/ 26/ 2005 Palmyra IL 3860 7/ 29/ 2005 Elk Grove Village IL 3862 8/ 17/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3864 7/ 26/ 2005 Power MT 3869 7/ 14/ 2005 Colbert GA 3870 7/ 26/ 2005 Hills Co. MT 3872 9/ 1/ 2005 Aztec NM 3874 9/ 1/ 2005 Carrizozo NM 3877 9/ 1/ 2005 Moriarty NM 3912 9/ 8/ 2005 Oxnard CA 3925 8/ 8/ 2005 Fresno CA 3926 8/ 8/ 2005 Fresno CA 3927 8/ 29/ 2005 Fallbrook CA 3928 9/ 7/ 2005 Irving TX 3929 8/ 2/ 2005 El Cajon CA 3934 8/ 12/ 2005 Jamestown CA 3936 8/ 8/ 2005 Stockton CA 3947 8/ 23/ 2005 Lakeland FL 3948 9/ 1/ 2005 Atlanta GA 3963 8/ 10/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3966 8/ 10/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3967 8/ 10/ 2005 Henderson NV 3968 8/ 10/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 3976 8/ 26/ 2005 San Leandro CA 3986 8/ 15/ 2005 New Lebanon NY 3989 7/ 29/ 2005 Temecula CA 3992 9/ 7/ 2005 Delphi IN 4007 9/ 9/ 2005 Bristol PA 4008 8/ 29/ 2005 Sallis MS 4009 8/ 29/ 2005 Attala Co. MS 4013 8/ 24/ 2005 Freeville NY 4032 9/ 8/ 2005 Helm CA 4036 9/ 8/ 2005 Modesto CA 4044 8/ 15/ 2005 Newport MN 4046 8/ 26/ 2005 Mahtomedi MN 4047 8/ 26/ 2005 Otsego MN 4060 9/ 8/ 2005 Ceres CA 4068 7/ 25/ 2005 Florence AL 4069 9/ 1/ 2005 Lackawanna PA 4077 8/ 25/ 2005 Brookly WI 4087 9/ 9/ 2005 Union City CA 4092 8/ 15/ 2005 Birchwood Lakes PA 4094 8/ 15/ 2005 Allentown PA 4099 8/ 26/ 2005 San Jose Ca 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 25 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 4124 8/ 31/ 2005 Little Rock AR 4142 8/ 2/ 2005 Stephens AR 4143 8/ 4/ 2005 Roxboro NC 4144 8/ 25/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 4151 9/ 6/ 2005 Escondido CA 4162 8/ 2/ 2005 Midland MI 4163 8/ 23/ 2005 North Las Vegas NV 4164 8/ 23/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 4166 9/ 7/ 2005 Newport OR 4168 8/ 2/ 2005 Muskegon MI 4170 8/ 19/ 2005 Houstonia MO 4196 8/ 26/ 2005 Sacramento Ca 4198 8/ 26/ 2005 San Jose CA 4250 8/ 5/ 2005 Hemet CA 4251 8/ 5/ 2005 Bakersfield CA 4253 8/ 5/ 2005 Perris CA 4263 8/ 1/ 2005 Branswick GA 4273 8/ 16/ 2005 Camden NJ 4276 8/ 1/ 2005 Jesup GA 4285 9/ 7/ 2005 Corona CA 4286 9/ 7/ 2005 Termal CA 4287 9/ 7/ 2005 Indio CA 4292 8/ 24/ 2005 Olds IA 4299 8/ 25/ 2005 Moab UT 4300 8/ 25/ 2005 Provo UT 4302 8/ 15/ 2005 Draper UT 4304 8/ 15/ 2005 Spanish Fork UT 4305 8/ 15/ 2005 Salt Lake City UT 4306 8/ 15/ 2005 Salt Lake City UT 4307 8/ 19/ 2005 Antlers OK 4317 8/ 26/ 2005 Buckman MN 4320 8/ 26/ 2005 Amery WI 4327 8/ 10/ 2005 Hamden CT 4328 8/ 24/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 4329 8/ 15/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 4332 8/ 29/ 2005 Valley Center CA 4334 8/ 10/ 2005 West Haven CT 4336 9/ 1/ 2005 Sedalia MS 4339 8/ 5/ 2005 Washington IL 4348 8/ 15/ 2005 Kankakee IL 4349 8/ 15/ 2005 Kankakee IL 4351 8/ 17/ 2005 Georgetown SC 4352 9/ 7/ 2005 San Bruno CA 4354 9/ 1/ 2005 San Marcos CA 4356 8/ 19/ 2005 Lewiston UT 4366 9/ 7/ 2005 Antelopoe CA 4373 9/ 7/ 2005 Shandon CA 4380 8/ 26/ 2005 Hammond IN 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 26 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 4381 8/ 8/ 2005 Albion MI 4408 9/ 7/ 2005 Eaton OH 4425 9/ 9/ 2005 Mariposa CA 4454 9/ 9/ 2005 Taft CA 4466 9/ 9/ 2005 Stockton CA 4471 9/ 9/ 2005 Lucerne CA 4472 9/ 9/ 2005 Camino CA 4473 9/ 9/ 2005 Kern CA 4474 9/ 9/ 2005 Visalia CA 4476 9/ 7/ 2005 Palm Springs CA 4479 9/ 9/ 2005 San Jose CA 4480 9/ 7/ 2005 Idyllwild CA 4483 9/ 7/ 2005 Cathedral City CA 4485 9/ 7/ 2005 Riverside County CA 4486 9/ 7/ 2005 Riverside County CA 4490 9/ 7/ 2005 San Bernardino CA 4492 9/ 9/ 2005 Bakersfield CA 4494 9/ 9/ 2005 Sacramento CA 4495 9/ 9/ 2005 Fresno CA 4496 9/ 9/ 2005 Fresno CA 4499 9/ 9/ 2005 Fresno CA 4509 9/ 7/ 2005 Paso Robles CA 4515 9/ 7/ 2005 Monterey Park CA 4519 9/ 7/ 2005 Moreno Valley CA 4525 8/ 31/ 2005 McKinney TX 4526 8/ 2/ 2005 Rockford AL 4527 8/ 2/ 2005 Rockford AL 4528 8/ 1/ 2005 Goodwater AL 4533 8/ 4/ 2005 Lafayette AL 4534 8/ 4/ 2005 Waverly AL 4535 8/ 2/ 2005 Opelika AL 4544 8/ 1/ 2005 Midway AL 4545 8/ 1/ 2005 Eufaula AL 4547 8/ 1/ 2005 Headland AL 4549 8/ 1/ 2005 Elba AL 4561 8/ 10/ 2005 Kalamazoo MI 4567 8/ 17/ 2005 Jonesville MI 4568 8/ 24/ 2005 Rapids WI 4587 9/ 7/ 2005 Long Beach CA 4591 9/ 6/ 2005 Pico Rivera CA 4592 9/ 6/ 2005 Los Angeles CA 4593 9/ 6/ 2005 Los Angeles CA 4599 8/ 15/ 2005 Browns Valley CA 4600 8/ 15/ 2005 Modesto CA 4601 8/ 15/ 2005 Truckee CA 4602 8/ 15/ 2005 Shingle Springs CA 4603 8/ 15/ 2005 Piedra CA 4608 9/ 2/ 2005 Cotati CA 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 27 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 4610 9/ 2/ 2005 Fresno CA 4611 8/ 11/ 2005 Midland MI 4612 9/ 8/ 2005 Orlando FL 4626 9/ 8/ 2005 Lakeland FL 4630 9/ 6/ 2005 Brentwood CA 4636 8/ 30/ 2005 Denver CO 4641 8/ 11/ 2005 Truckee CA 4646 8/ 31/ 2005 Ramah CO 4648 8/ 31/ 2005 LaPorte CO 4649 8/ 31/ 2005 Limon CO 4650 8/ 31/ 2005 Colorado CO 4651 8/ 31/ 2005 Loveland CO 4653 9/ 7/ 2005 Archdale NC 4654 8/ 31/ 2005 Greeley CO 4659 8/ 29/ 2005 Boulder CO 4660 8/ 29/ 2005 Loveland CO 4661 8/ 31/ 2005 Colorado Springs CO 4663 8/ 30/ 2005 Wolcott CO 4664 8/ 30/ 2005 Glenwood Springs CO 4666 9/ 7/ 2005 Durham NC 4667 8/ 31/ 2005 Glenwood Springs Co 4668 8/ 31/ 2005 Fruita CO 4669 9/ 8/ 2005 Rock Hill SC 4670 8/ 11/ 2005 Lake Nebagamon WI 4671 9/ 7/ 2005 Rockingham NC 4672 9/ 7/ 2005 Durham NC 4674 9/ 7/ 2005 Plano TX 4686 9/ 9/ 2005 Casper WY 4687 9/ 7/ 2005 Fayetteville NC 4691 9/ 8/ 2005 Durham NC 4695 8/ 12/ 2005 Grantville KS 4697 8/ 25/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 4698 8/ 15/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 4701 9/ 7/ 2005 Perris CA 4704 8/ 29/ 2005 San Bernardino CA 4715 9/ 6/ 2005 Plano TX 4720 9/ 1/ 2005 Sylmar CA 4721 9/ 1/ 2005 Paramount CA 4722 9/ 1/ 2005 Gardena CA 4723 9/ 1/ 2005 Irvine CA 4738 9/ 1/ 2005 Florence AZ 4745 9/ 2/ 2005 Chimacum WA 4747 9/ 1/ 2005 West Covina CA 4760 9/ 7/ 2005 Sauk City WI 4763 9/ 6/ 2005 Brooklyn NY 4768 9/ 8/ 2005 Durham NC 4769 9/ 7/ 2005 Mebane NC 4770 8/ 5/ 2005 Five Points AL 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 28 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 4801 8/ 31/ 2005 Culver City CA 4803 8/ 31/ 2005 San Bernadino CA 4818 9/ 7/ 2005 Ann Arbor IL 4822 9/ 1/ 2005 Denison TX 4823 8/ 24/ 2005 Cotati CA 4825 9/ 8/ 2005 New Rockford ND 4827 9/ 8/ 2005 Buffalo WY 4829 9/ 9/ 2005 Glendo WY 4830 9/ 8/ 2005 Cheyenne WY 4831 9/ 9/ 2005 Eddy NM 4832 9/ 9/ 2005 Panguitch UT 4834 9/ 8/ 2005 Cheyenne WY 4835 9/ 8/ 2005 Buffalo WY 4836 9/ 8/ 2005 Verona ND 4837 9/ 8/ 2005 Grace City ND 4838 9/ 8/ 2005 Carrington ND 4840 9/ 8/ 2005 Petersburg VA 4841 9/ 8/ 2005 Aneta ND 4845 9/ 8/ 2005 Epping ND 4846 9/ 8/ 2005 Williston ND 4864 8/ 5/ 2005 Eatonton GA 4865 9/ 8/ 2005 Adams ND 4889 9/ 8/ 2005 Cedar Falls IA 4890 9/ 8/ 2005 Red Wing MN 4891 9/ 6/ 2005 Bensonville IL 4892 9/ 7/ 2005 Naperville IL 4906 8/ 29/ 2005 Richmond CA 4911 8/ 25/ 2005 Henderson NV 4912 8/ 25/ 2005 Henderson NV 4913 8/ 19/ 2005 Washington AR 4914 8/ 19/ 2005 Marietta TX 4916 8/ 19/ 2005 Valliant OK 4917 8/ 25/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 4926 8/ 29/ 2005 Stockton CA 4938 8/ 15/ 2005 Marshfield WI 4942 8/ 26/ 2005 Henderson/ Clark County NV 4962 8/ 9/ 2005 Roper GA 4967 9/ 8/ 2005 Orlando FL 4968 9/ 7/ 2005 Antioch IL 4987 8/ 24/ 2005 Manitowoc WI 4988 8/ 24/ 2005 Stevens Point WI 4990 8/ 24/ 2005 Portage WI 4995 8/ 19/ 2005 Parker CO 5003 9/ 6/ 2005 Jeanerette LA 5004 9/ 6/ 2005 Corpus Christi TX 5018 8/ 25/ 2005 Yolo CA 5028 9/ 9/ 2005 Hobbs NM 5031 9/ 8/ 2005 St. John ND 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 29 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 5032 9/ 8/ 2005 Walhalla ND 5059 6/ 16/ 2005 Chicago/ Cook County IL 5060 9/ 7/ 2005 Woodbridge NJ 5063 9/ 7/ 2005 Bend OR 5064 9/ 7/ 2005 Bend OR 5065 9/ 7/ 2005 Bend OR 5066 9/ 7/ 2005 Bend OR 5067 9/ 7/ 2005 Bend OR 5068 8/ 23/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 5069 8/ 23/ 2005 Phoenix AZ 5084 9/ 6/ 2005 Wimbledon ND 5089 8/ 23/ 2005 Wichita KS 5090 8/ 24/ 2005 Onsted MI 5091 8/ 24/ 2005 Atascadero CA 5094 8/ 24/ 2005 Anza CA 5096 8/ 24/ 2005 Rancho Cucamonga CA 5100 8/ 24/ 2005 Riverside CA 5107 8/ 23/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 5132 9/ 6/ 2005 Perris CA 5138 9/ 2/ 2005 Tuolumne CA 5139 8/ 12/ 2005 Graham GA 5140 9/ 7/ 2005 Black Hawk CO 5160 8/ 22/ 2005 Hilbert WI 5161 8/ 22/ 2005 Chilton WI 5176 9/ 2/ 2005 Hillsboro OR 5177 9/ 6/ 2005 Coupeville WA 5178 9/ 6/ 2005 Sagle ID 5179 9/ 6/ 2005 Redmond WA 5186 8/ 24/ 2005 Onsted MI 5236 8/ 24/ 2005 Lake Elsinore CA 5239 8/ 24/ 2005 Ionia MI 5242 8/ 26/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 5269 8/ 29/ 2005 Sparks NV 5292 8/ 26/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 5298 8/ 29/ 2005 Kansas City KS 5369 9/ 8/ 2005 Harris TX 5370 8/ 29/ 2005 San Jose CA 5372 8/ 29/ 2005 Cupertino Ca 5373 8/ 29/ 2005 Mountain View CA 5375 9/ 8/ 2005 Williamson County TX 5418 8/ 29/ 2005 Henderson NV 5424 8/ 29/ 2005 Wichita KS 5481 8/ 29/ 2005 Las Vegas NV 5485 9/ 2/ 2005 Lake Elsinor CA 5492 9/ 9/ 2005 Gillette WY 5503 8/ 31/ 2005 Plum City WI 5504 9/ 1/ 2005 Chicago IL 5507 9/ 1/ 2005 Kilkenny MN 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 30 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State 5521 9/ 9/ 2005 Houston TX 5549 9/ 2/ 2005 East Lansing MI 5550 9/ 2/ 2005 East Lansing MI 5596 9/ 6/ 2005 Sequin TX 5683 9/ 1/ 2005 Fillmore CA 5685 9/ 1/ 2005 Sherman Oaks CA 5688 9/ 1/ 2005 Chino Hills CA 5720 8/ 26/ 2005 Eutaw AL 5722 8/ 26/ 2005 Tutwiler MS 5728 8/ 31/ 2005 Clarksdale MS 5729 8/ 31/ 2005 Caohoma MS 5777 8/ 26/ 2005 Homer Ga 5781 9/ 2/ 2005 Rice Lake WI 5785 9/ 2/ 2005 Lena WI 5799 8/ 26/ 2005 Atlanta GA 5800 8/ 26/ 2005 Tyrone GA 5817 9/ 2/ 2005 Newman CA 5847 9/ 2/ 2005 Greenfield CA 5877 9/ 9/ 2005 Nueces County TX NT1 6/ 23/ 2005 Ridgeway IA NT10 5/ 12/ 2005 DeKalb Co. GA NT102 9/ 7/ 2005 Kenosha WI NT104 9/ 8/ 2005 Laramie County WY NT105 9/ 7/ 2005 Menomonee Falls WI NT11 6/ 23/ 2005 Minneapolis MN NT12 6/ 23/ 2005 Granada MN NT13 6/ 23/ 2005 Minneapolis MN NT14 6/ 23/ 2005 Minneapolis MN NT15 6/ 23/ 2005 Bellevue NE NT16 6/ 23/ 2005 St. Paul MN NT17 4/ 26/ 2005 Bastonville GA NT18 6/ 24/ 2005 Corcoran MN NT19 7/ 14/ 2005 Cypress TX NT2 7/ 14/ 2005 Bell County TX NT21 7/ 14/ 2005 San Antonio TX NT22 7/ 19/ 2005 Copperas Cove TX NT23 7/ 20/ 2005 Outagamie Co. WI NT24 7/ 20/ 2005 Shawano Co. WI NT25 7/ 25/ 2005 Greenville WI NT26 7/ 29/ 2005 Town of Heartland WI NT27 8/ 12/ 2005 Bonduel WI NT28 7/ 14/ 2005 Houston TX NT3 7/ 14/ 2005 Cypress TX NT4 7/ 14/ 2005 Houston TX NT5 7/ 14/ 2005 Houston TX NT6 7/ 14/ 2005 Bell County TX NT7 7/ 5/ 2005 Colfax WI NT8 7/ 14/ 2005 Spring TX 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 31 TCNS# Receive Date City or County State NT9 6/ 24/ 2005 Cokato MN KEY TCNS # = Tower Construction Notification System Date = Referral Date City or County = Proposed Tower Location NT# = Referrals to the FCC not using TCNS 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 32 JOINT CONCURRING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN AND COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY Re: Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, Declaratory Ruling We support the Commission’s goals in this Declaratory Ruling, which interprets and clarifies the application of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission (Nationwide Agreement) 32 when a federally recognized Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization (NHO) does not timely respond to the good faith efforts of an “applicant” or the Commission to contact the Indian tribe or NHO regarding a proposed communications tower or antenna. While we support the goals of this item, we nevertheless concur in the result. Since the Nationwide Agreement became effective, a significant backlog of tower referrals has developed at the Commission. We supported several proposals intended to resolve this backlog. We continue to believe that siting of towers or antennas is not a federal or federally assisted undertaking, 33 and we would have preferred that the Commission reconsider its decision on that issue. We also would have preferred an even more streamlined review process that would have allowed construction to proceed even faster. Finally, we supported the “three- strikes” process submitted by CTIA, which was endorsed by industry and the United South and Eastern Tribes, 34 and to which we received no opposition. While we concur in today’s ruling, we worry that this process may still add needless layers of bureaucracy to the tower siting process and lead to unnecessary delay. 32 47 C. F. R. Part 1, Appendix B. 33 See Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process, WT Docket No. 03- 128, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1073, 1230- 32 (2004) (Abernathy, K., dissenting in part, Martin, K., approving in part and dissenting in part). 34 See Letter from James T. Martin, Executive Director, United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., to Monica Desai, Acting Bureau Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, and Catherine Seidel, Acting Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Aug. 15, 2005). 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 33 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS Re: Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement I support today’s decision first and foremost because it maintains the basic procedures adopted in Nationwide Programmatic Agreement and continues the vitally important government- to- government relationship that guides FCC interactions with federally- recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs). I also support issuing a clarification of our processes now that we have some experience with implementation of the Agreement. It is not a perfect solution or as rigorous as I would have preferred, but I am optimistic that the clarification we adopt today will enable the timely deployment of communications infrastructure while, at the same time, allowing us to protect our valuable historic places. Nevertheless, the Commission must continue to work hard to implement the Agreement and should periodically reexamine our processes to ensure that we do not undermine the ability of Indian Tribes and NHOs to protect places that are culturally or religiously important. 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 176 34 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN Re: Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement I am very pleased with this Declaratory Ruling because it provides an important clarification to certain provisions of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA), a landmark agreement that I fully support. The Order strikes the right balance between the Commission’s consultation obligations to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the need for certainty when Indian tribes and NHOs have not responded in a timely fashion to industry and Commission contacts. Resolution of this issue is long overdue, given that winter is fast approaching and the construction season is ending across much of the northern United States. We need to encourage wireless infrastructure deployment, and not unnecessarily stand in its way. Given the public interest considerations and our consultation efforts to date, I am pleased that we have agreed to immediately clear the enormous backlog of tower siting requests. While I know that there have been challenges for all parties involved in the initial implementation of the NPA, I am very encouraged by reports from both industry and tribes and NHOs regarding the extent of consultation that has taken place over the past several months. Indeed, approximately 95% of the 577 federally recognized tribes have availed themselves of the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). These are very positive developments, and they should not be forgotten in our resolution today of the “lack of response” issue. Recognizing the efforts of so many to implement the NPA, I fully appreciate the concerns that were raised regarding the uncertainty created when Indian tribes and NHOs fail to reply to industry and Commission efforts to obtain a response as specified in the NPA. Once I heard about the extent of these concerns, I was pleased to work actively with my colleagues and with organizations like the United South and Eastern Tribes, the National Congress of American Indians, and CTIA to come up with an approach that both addresses the current application backlog and meets the needs of all concerned parties going forward. I fully endorse the level of cooperation and understanding that helped us develop the approach we adopt today and hope it serves as a model for further collaborative efforts under the NPA. The NPA can and will work. We have taken important steps forward in this item, and we should continue to improve the consultation process through periodic reviews of the notification provisions of the NPA. Just as with my approach to the issue before us today, I commit to working actively with industry and Indian tribes and NHOs to ensure that consultation under the NPA works as smoothly as possible in the future. 34