**DA 05 - 1131**

**[Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested]{.underline}**

Ronald E. Quirk, Jr.

Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP

1201 New York Avenue, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20005-3917

Dear Mr. Quirk,

This letter responds to the Petitions filed by Morris Communications,
Inc. (Morris),[^1] requesting a waiver of the rules that require the
automatic cancellation of Morris's 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio
("SMR") Major Trading Area ("MTA") licenses.[^2] Morris also seeks
relief from Section 90.665(c) of the Commission's rules so that it may
have additional time to construct a 900 MHz system.[^3] For the reasons
set forth below, we deny Morris's Petitions.

**[Background]{.underline}**

Morris requests relief with respect to nine SMR licenses. Morris placed
winning bids for the SMR licenses in the 900 MHz auction (Auction No.
7), which concluded in April, 1996.[^4] Grant of these licenses was
conditioned upon Morris's full and timely performance of its payment
obligations.[^5] In the auction, Morris qualified as a designated entity
eligible to pay its high bids in installment payments pursuant to the
Commission's rules.[^6]

As permitted by the Commission's rules, Morris could take up to two
grace periods of one quarter each to satisfy any of its installment
payments.[^7] To take advantage of the grace periods, Morris also had to
pay applicable late fees.[^8] Consequently, the final deadline for
making any outstanding payments on Morris's July 31, 2001 obligations
was January 31, 2002.[^9] Any amounts relating to its July 31, 2001
obligations that remained outstanding after January 31, 2002 would
trigger the automatic cancellation of the relevant license(s).[^10]
Morris's payments prior to January 31, 2002 were insufficient to satisfy
obligations arising from installment payments that originally came due
on July 31, 2001. Morris did not make a subsequent payment until
February 5, 2002, or more than six months after the original July 31,
2001 payment date.[^11] By operation of the Commission's rules, because
Morris failed to satisfy its July 31, 2001 obligations within two
calendar quarters following the due date, the subject licenses
automatically cancelled on February 1, 2002 pursuant to Section
1.2110(g)(4)(iv) of the Commission's rules.[^12]

On February 5, 2002, Morris faxed a letter to the Commission's loan
servicing agent representing that it had only just received the January
bill.[^13] Thereafter, Morris filed its Waiver I Request on May 2, 2002,
alleging, *inter alia*, that it had received its payment notice late and
that it was confused over the amount of its obligation.[^14]

Subsequent to its February 2002 attempt to bring itself current on the
installment payments for the nine SMR licenses, Morris ceased making
installment payments for seven of the nine licenses, it claims due to
financial difficulties.[^15] Thus, after October 30, 2002 Morris ceased
rendering installment payments for all but the KNNY352 and KNNY359
licenses.

As further grounds for its requests for waiver, Morris states that it
cannot obtain additional financing, that reasonably-priced and suitable
900 MHz SMR equipment remains unavailable, and that demand for 900 MHz
in predominantly rural markets has not occurred.[^16] Morris therefore
requests that the Commission waive Section 1.2110(g)(4) and Section
90.665(c) of the Commission's rules for all nine licenses.[^17]

**[Discussion]{.underline}**

To obtain a waiver of the Commission's rules, Morris must demonstrate:
(i) that the underlying purpose of the rule would not be served, or
would be frustrated, by its application in this particular case, and
that grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or
(ii) that the unique facts and circumstances of the particular case
render application of the rule inequitable, unduly burdensome or
otherwise contrary to the public interest, or that the applicant has no
reasonable alternative.[^18] We find that Morris has failed to satisfy
this waiver standard.

Morris admits that its February 5, 2002 payment was made five days after
the January 31, 2002 deadline, which in turn was more than six months
after the original July 31, 2001 payment date.[^19] Morris asserts,
among other things, that it was uncertain as to the exact amount owed
and that it received its payment notice late.[^20] Even assuming
*arguendo* that Morris did not receive the Commission's January 2002
statement until after the January 31, 2002 deadline, the Commission has
consistently held that bills are a courtesy and that each licensee is
charged with the responsibility of knowing its installment payment
obligations.[^21] The Commission has held unequivocally that "it is the
responsibility of a licensee to ensure that installment payments are
timely made and that it is not the duty of the Commission to inform a
licensee that payments have been missed or that a license has been
terminated."[^22] Morris was aware of the January 31, 2002 deadline and
should have planned accordingly. It bore the risk of any complications
or confusion that may have arisen.[^23] Morris's asserted
misunderstanding cannot, without more, relieve it of its obligations
under the Commission's rules. Allegations of mistake and circumstances
similar to those raised by Morris would not distinguish it from prior
cases in which we determined that denying relief was essential to
safeguarding the integrity of the auctions process.[^24] Morris's
uncertainty as to the exact amount owed in connection with payments
originally due July 31, 2001, is not sufficient to justify waiving the
deadline. Its uncertainty could not \-- and did not \-- relieve it of
the obligation to pay the properly assessed amounts and to continue
making its quarterly payments. The Commission did not intend the
two-quarter grace period to be used as a matter of course.[^25] It is
the responsibility of the licensee and not the Commission to ensure that
accurate and timely payment of all financial obligations is made to the
Commission.

Morris has failed to demonstrate that the underlying purpose of the
Commission's payment rule would not be served, or would be frustrated,
by its application in this particular case. Recognizing that small
business licensees qualifying to pay winning bids for licenses over time
may encounter financial difficulties over a lengthy payment period,
Commission rules expressly permit such licensees to defer making
required installment payments for up to two consecutive quarters after
the relevant payment's original due date.[^26] Requiring the payment of
winning bids protects the integrity of the auction and the Commission's
licensing process.[^27] The Commission assigns licenses using
competitive bidding to promote the public interest objectives of Section
309(j) of the Communications Act.[^28] Payment of winning bids in
compliance with Commission rules is critical to realizing those public
interest objectives. As the Commission has stated previously:

> Section 309(j) specifically includes a presumption that licenses
> should be assigned by auction to those who place the highest value on
> the use of the spectrum. Such entities are presumed to be those best
> able to put the licenses to their most efficient use. The ability to
> make installment payments on a timely basis as a condition of
> retaining a license is intrinsic to the notion that licensees who
> cannot make timely payments should lose the presumption. Insisting
> that licensees demonstrate their ability to pay as a condition to
> continuing to hold licenses is essential to a fair and efficient
> licensing process, is fair to all participants in our auctions,
> including those who won and those who did not, and fosters the
> promotion of economic opportunity and competition in the
> marketplace.[^29]

When licensees fail to pay winning bids, or the principal and related
interest when paying winning bids in installments, on a timely basis in
compliance with the Commission's rules, the presumption that the auction
assigned the license to the party that placed the highest value on the
license is lost.[^30] Such circumstances raise the prospect that the
defaulting licensee outbid others simply by bidding regardless of (or
without reasonable consideration for) its ability to pay. When a
licensee fails to make its quarterly payment on time, the Commission has
consistently declined to exercise much flexibility due to the dangers
that such flexibility presents to the bedrock presumption that underlies
the integrity of the auctions process as a spectrum assignment tool --
*i.e.*, that those who value the spectrum the most, as demonstrated by
*bona fide* high bids, are presumed to be those best able to put that
spectrum to its most efficient use. If the Commission were to exercise
much flexibility in relieving bidders from their bid obligations, then
the bid would cease to operate as an effective proxy for identifying
those who value the spectrum the most, thereby undermining the
presumption that the high bidder is best able to put the spectrum to its
most highly valued use. Accordingly, in such circumstances, the
Commission consistently has denied waiver of automatic cancellation
pursuant to Section 1.2110(g)(4)(iv).[^31] In order to avoid the
automatic cancellation of its licenses, Morris's July 31, 2001 payment
should have been made, at the latest, by January 31, 2002. It was not
and Morris has failed to present any unique facts or circumstances to
render the Commission's fundamental payment rules inequitable. We also
find that Morris's reliance on the *Meredith S. Senter* and *Lakeland*
decisions as support for its waiver request is misplaced.[^32]

Morris acknowledges that it is facing financial difficulties and that it
cannot currently continue to make its installment payments for these
licenses.[^33] Morris claims that its inability to generate revenue from
its licenses and "its substantial installment payment obligations for
those licenses, have resulted in financial difficulties for
Morris."[^34] Morris maintains that "\[d\]ue to the economic downturn,
Morris has had reduced financial resources which have been exacerbated
by its installment payments on its 900 MHz SMR licenses which have not
yet generated any revenue for Morris."[^35] In fact, in light of its
financial difficulties, Morris has failed to make any payments for seven
of the nine licenses since October 30, 2002,[^36] and has requested that
the Commission grant it relief from making installment payments for all
of its licenses for a period of one year to enable it to utilize those
funds to build its 900 MHz network.[^37]

Morris attempts to rely on Commission precedent for the proposition that
the 900 MHz SMR service is a capital intensive service and as such, it
should be relieved of its installment payment obligations for the seven
licenses on which it has ceased making payments.[^38] Morris's
characterization that the Commission conceded that implementation of the
900 MHz SMR service is a capital intensive service in *Amendment of
Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules* misconstrues the totality of
the Commission's findings in that Order. In discussing what measures may
be appropriate to encourage the participation of designated entities
pursuant to Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, the Commission
stated that its "expectation is that while the 900 MHz MTA service may
be a capital-intensive undertaking, it should require considerably less
capital than broadband or regional narrowband PCS, thereby providing
greater opportunities for participation by smaller businesses . . .
."[^39] The Commission also stated that "we believe that the 900 MHz SMR
service may be a suitable service in which to assess the effectiveness
of more uniform measures, because capital entry requirements are
expected to be lower than PCS and the spectrum is occupied by incumbents
who will not be required to relocate."[^40] Consequently, we believe
that Morris's reliance on this Order is misplaced. Additionally, the
Commission has previously declined to waive payment deadlines where a
licensee has asserted financial difficulties or cost intensive equipment
complications.[^41]

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

For the foregoing reasons, Morris is not entitled to a waiver of Section
1.2110(g)(4) of the Commission's rules with respect to the January 31,
2002 payment deadline. Accordingly, pursuant to Section
1.2110(g)(4),[^42] Morris's licenses[^43] have cancelled and Morris is
subject to debt collection procedures. We therefore DENY its Request for
Waiver and its Petition for Rule Waiver. We further DISMISS Morris's
Request for Stay as moot. Considering our findings above, we will not
grant Morris relief from Section 90.665(c) of the Commission's rules so
that it may have additional time to construct a 900 MHz system.

This action is taken pursuant to Section 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 309(j)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
154(j), 303(r), and 309(j), under authority delegated pursuant to
Section 0.331 of the Commission's rules.[^44]

Sincerely,

Margaret Wiener

Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Morris Communications, Inc.'s Request for Waiver (filed May 2,
    2002) ("Waiver I Request"); Morris Communications, Inc.'s Request
    for Stay (filed May 6, 2002) ("Stay Request"); Morris
    Communications, Inc.'s Petition for Rule Waiver (filed January 21,
    2003) ("Waiver II Request") (collectively "Petitions").

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4). The licenses at issue are KNNY352 -
    MTA006, Channel Block O; KNNY353 - MTA044, Channel Block R;
    KNNY355 - MTA029, Channel Block A; KNNY356 - MTA043, Channel Block
    Q;

    KNNY357 - MTA044, Channel Block H; KNNY358 - MTA043, Channel Block
    C; KNNY359 - MTA006, Channel Block A; KNNY361 - MTA044, Channel
    Block M; and KNNY363 - MTA044, Channel Block N.

[^3]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 5-6.

[^4]: FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1,020 Licenses to
    Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas, *Public Notice*, DA
    96-586 (rel. April 18, 1996).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(i) and (ii).

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(i) and (ii).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(ii).

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(iv).

[^11]: *See* Morris Waiver I Request at 2.

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.2110(g)(4); Amendment of Part 1 of the
    Commission's Rules -- Competitive Bidding Procedures, *Third Report
    and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 13 FCC
    Rcd 374, 437 (1997).

[^13]: *See* Letter to Judith Samuel, Colson Services Corporation, from
    W. Todd Hicks, Controller, Morris Communications, Inc. dated
    February 5, 2002.

[^14]: *See* Morris Waiver I Request at 2-3. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    §1.2110(g)(4).

[^15]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 9, 13-15.

[^16]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 7, 14.

[^17]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 6.

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.

[^19]: *See* Morris Waiver I Request at 2.

[^20]: *See* Morris Waiver I Request at 2.

[^21]: *See* Licenses of 21st Century Telesis, Inc. for Facilities in
    the Broadband Personal Communications Services, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,113 (2000), *reconsideration denied*,
    Licenses of 21^st^ Century Telesis Joint Venture, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 17,257 (2001), *review denied in part,
    dismissed in part*, *21st Century Telesis Joint Venture* v.
    *F.C.C.*, 318 F3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003)*.*

[^22]: Lakeland PCS LLC and Cricket Licensee (Lakeland) Inc. for
    Assignment of PCS License for Station KNLG741, *Second Order on
    Reconsideration*, 15 FCC Rcd 23,733, ¶4 (2000)) ("*Lakeland*").

[^23]: Morris asserts that there was delay in routing the payment notice
    to the appropriate contact person within the company since there was
    no contact name on the payment notice. As noted, the Commission
    provides payment notices to licensees as a courtesy. However, even
    when the Commission outsourced the administration of its auction
    loan portfolio to a new company, it provided notice to Morris and
    other licensees and emphasized that the loan remittance procedures
    would not change and that outsourcing would not change account
    numbers, debt obligations, or place of payment.

[^24]: *See, e.g.,* Licenses of 21^st^ Century Telesis*, supra,*
    Southern Communications Systems, Inc., Request for Limited Rule
    Waiver to Comply with PCS Installment Payment for C Block Licenses
    in the Cleveland, TN BTA, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    25103 (2000), further reconsideration denied, *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 18,357 (2001); Requests for Extension
    of the Commission's Initial Non-Delinquency Period for C and F Block
    Installment Payments, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd
    6080 (1999), *aff'd*, *SouthEast Telephone v. FCC*, No. 99-1164,
    1999 WL 1214855 (D.C. Cir., Nov. 24, 1999); Request of Inforum
    Communications, Inc. for Petition for Reconsideration and Waiver
    Request for Late Acceptance of BTA Installment Payment, *Order*, DA
    04-20 (released January 8, 2004), *recon. pending*; Request of GLH
    Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of Installment Payment
    Deadlines (47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)) and Debt Collection Rules (47
    C.F.R. §1901 et seq.), DA 03-2368, 18 FCC Rcd 14,695 (2003)
    (Petition for Reconsideration pending); Pan American Interactive,
    D.A. 03-2406,18 FCC Rcd 15,314 (2003); Letter to Messrs. Stephen
    Diaz Gavin and Paul C. Besozzi, Counsel for U.S. Telemetry
    Corporation, from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 17 FCC Rcd
    6442, 6446 (2002).

[^25]: Indeed, the Commission has stated that it believes that licensees
    should be working to obtain the funds necessary to meet their
    payment obligations before they are due and accordingly, that grace
    periods should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *See*
    Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules - Competitive Bidding
    Procedures, *Third Report and Order,* 13 FCC Rcd 374, 439 (1997).

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)(i) and (ii). Licensees that take
    advantage of these automatic grace periods must pay an additional
    late fee. If the full amount of the required installment payment is
    not received before its original due date but within the first
    quarter after it, the licensee must pay an additional five percent
    (5%) of the required installment payment. If the full amount of the
    required installment payment is received after the first but within
    the second quarter following its original due date, the licensee
    must pay an additional ten percent (10%) of the required installment
    payment.

[^27]: *See* Letter to Messrs. David Irwin and Nathaniel Hardy, counsel
    for MBO Wireless, Inc., from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 19
    FCC Rcd 4011 (2004), citing Licenses of 21st Century Telesis, Inc.
    for Facilities in the Broadband Personal Communications Services,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,113 (2000),
    *reconsideration denied*, Licenses of 21^st^ Century Telesis Joint
    Venture, *Order on Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 17,257 (2001),
    *review denied in part, dismissed in part*, *21st Century Telesis
    Joint Venture* v. *F.C.C.*, 318 F3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003)*.*

[^28]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).

[^29]: Licenses of 21st Century Telesis, Inc. for Facilities in the
    Broadband Personal Communications Services, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 25,113, 25,123-24 (2000), *reconsideration
    denied*, Licenses of 21^st^ Century Telesis Joint Venture, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 17,257 (2001), *review denied in part,
    dismissed in part*, *21st Century Telesis Joint Venture* v.
    *F.C.C.*, 318 F3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003)*.*

[^30]: *Id*., 15 FCC Rcd at 25,123-24.

[^31]: *See, e.g.,* Licenses of 21^st^ Century Telesis*, supra,*
    Southern Communications Systems, Inc., Request for Limited Rule
    Waiver to Comply with PCS Installment Payment for C Block Licenses
    in the Cleveland, TN BTA, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    25103 (2000), further reconsideration denied, *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 18,357 (2001); Requests for Extension
    of the Commission's Initial Non-Delinquency Period for C and F Block
    Installment Payments, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd
    6080 (1999), *aff'd*, *SouthEast Telephone v. FCC*, No. 99-1164,
    1999 WL 1214855 (D.C. Cir., Nov. 24, 1999); Request of Inforum
    Communications, Inc. for Petition for Reconsideration and Waiver
    Request for Late Acceptance of BTA Installment Payment, *Order*, DA
    04-20 (released January 8, 2004) (reconsideration pending) (denying
    waiver to licensee that paid both required installment payment and
    applicable late fees days after non-payment triggered cancellation);
    Request of GLH Communications, Inc. for Temporary Waivers of
    Installment Payment Deadlines (47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4)) and Debt
    Collection Rules (47 C.F.R. §1901 et seq.), DA 03-2368, 18 FCC Rcd
    14,695 (2003) (Petition for Reconsideration pending); Pan American
    Interactive, D.A. 03-2406,18 FCC Rcd 15,314 (2003); Letter to
    Messrs. Stephen Diaz Gavin and Paul C. Besozzi, Counsel for U.S.
    Telemetry Corporation, from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 17
    FCC Rcd 6442, 6446 (2002). *Cf.* Letter to Messrs. David Irwin and
    Nathaniel Hardy, counsel for MBO Wireless, Inc., from Margaret
    Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, 19 FCC Rcd 4011 (2004) (when licensee
    pays all amounts assessed as principal and interest prior to
    Commission final deadlines and pays any outstanding amounts assessed
    as late fees promptly after discovery of outstanding late fees after
    final payment deadline, Commission may waive final deadline for
    amounts assessed as late fees).

[^32]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 8 and Letter to Margaret
    Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, from Frederick M. Joyce, Esq., Counsel to
    Morris Communications, Inc. dated November 24, 2004, citing Letter
    to Meredith S. Senter, Jr., Esq., from Amy J. Zoslov, Chief,
    Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, 14 FCC Rcd 5003, ¶ 4 (1999) ("*Meredith S. Senter*"). In
    this 1999 decision, while the Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the "Division")
    indicated that the repeated acceptance of a late payment *could*
    have been construed as a constructive waiver of the payment
    deadline, it also acknowledged that the licensee in that case had a
    record of timely payments over a period of nearly two years after it
    was in default. The Division also emphasized that it is every
    licensee's responsibility to ensure that its payments are submitted
    on time. In *Lakeland*, the Commission found that a constructive
    waiver was warranted where a payment notice had indicated that the
    final day of the grace period was one day after the actual due date.
    However, the facts surrounding Morris's missed payment deadline are
    very different. In looking at the totality of the circumstances,
    there were no administrative actions by the Commission that could
    have been construed as a constructive waiver.

[^33]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 14.

[^34]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 14.

[^35]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 14.

[^36]: *See* Letter to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Spectrum
    Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, from Frederick
    M. Joyce, Esq., counsel for Morris Communications, Inc. dated
    November 24, 2004 (acknowledging that since the filing of its Waiver
    II Request on January 21, 2003, Morris only continued to make
    payments on two of its licenses, KNNY352 and KNNY359).

[^37]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 6. As a result of the action we
    take in this Order, we will not grant Morris's one year forbearance
    request to avoid making installment payments on all of its licenses.

[^38]: *See* Morris Waiver II Request at 14, citing Amendment of Parts 2
    and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of 200
    Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901 MHz and
    the 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio Pool,
    *Second Order on Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order,* 11
    FCC Rcd 2639, 2702 ¶156 (1995) ("*Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the
    Commission's Rules*").

[^39]: *Id.* at 11 FCC Rcd 2639, 2702 ¶156.

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: Pan American Interactive, D.A. 03-2406,18 FCC Rcd 15,314 (2003);
    Letter to Messrs. Stephen Diaz Gavin and Paul C. Besozzi, Counsel
    for U.S. Telemetry Corporation, from Margaret Wiener, Chief,
    Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, 17 FCC Rcd 6442, 6446 (2002).

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(4).

[^43]: KNNY352 - MTA006, Channel Block O; KNNY353 - MTA044, Channel
    Block R; KNNY355 - MTA029, Channel Block A; KNNY356 - MTA043,
    Channel Block Q; KNNY357 - MTA044, Channel Block H; KNNY358 -
    MTA043, Channel Block C; KNNY359 - MTA006, Channel Block A;
    KNNY361 - MTA044, Channel Block M; and KNNY363 - MTA044, Channel
    Block N.

[^44]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.331.