Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In re Application of                 )
                                     )
TALK BACK ARKANSAS, INC.             )
                                     )
                                     )
Station KNKB-547                     )
Little Rock, Arkansas               )

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:   December 10, 1999            Released:   December 13, 1999

By the Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

                        I. INTRODUCTION

1.   In this Order, we dismiss an application filed by Talk Back Arkansas, Inc. (TBA) for frequency
454.100 MHz in Little Rock, Arkansas.  TBA requests that we dismiss the renewal application of  the
incumbent licensee, Norark Paging of Little Rock, Inc. (Norark), and grant TBA's mutually exclusive
application.  We dismiss TBA's application for the reasons stated herein.

                                
                         II. BACKGROUND

2.   In 1990, Norark was granted authority to operate station KNKB-547 on frequency 454.100 MHz
in Little Rock, Arkansas.  Norark filed a renewal application upon expiration of its license, and the
application was placed on Public Notice.  On March 24, 1999, TBA filed its competing application,
alleging that Norark had failed to provide service and had warehoused spectrum.  In support of its
allegation, TBA argued that it had monitored frequency 454.100 MHz weekly for two years and had not
heard any traffic on the frequency.  TBA further argued that although Norark has been licensed to
operate the station since 1990, Norark's own publicity states only that it proposed coverage in Little
Rock, Arkansas, by 1997, and in fact it has not provided even this coverage.

                        III. DISCUSSION

3.  We conclude that the paging application freeze precludes acceptance of TBA's application.  In
February 1996, the Commission proposed rules to replace the existing site-by-site licensing of paging
services with a geographic area licensing scheme under which mutually exclusive applications will be
resolved by competitive bidding.  These changes were intended to streamline licensing procedures and
provide a flexible operating environment for all paging services.  In order to facilitate the transition to
geographic area licensing, the Commission suspended the acceptance of new applications for paging
channels that were not received by midnight February 8, 1996.  Nothing in the NPRM or any subsequent
order suggests that there is an exception to the freeze for competing applications filed against renewals.

4.  Although TBA does not request a waiver of the application freeze, we will consider on our own
motion whether a waiver should be granted.  A waiver of our rules applicable to Public Mobile Services
is appropriate when a party demonstrates either (1) that the underlying purpose of the rule would not be
served or would be frustrated by application to a particular case, and that grant of a waiver is otherwise
in the public interest, or (2) that the unique facts and circumstances of a 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.  

5.  We conclude that TBA has not satisfied the criteria for waiver of the paging application freeze. 
In particular, we find that enforcement of the freeze against TBA is consistent with the purpose of the
freeze.  In establishing rules and procedures for the transition to geographic area licensing, the
Commission included provisions to protect incumbent licensees in their established service areas.  To the
extent that an area is not served by an incumbent over a given frequency, the Commission intended that
it would be served by the holder of the geographic area license.  Thus, for instance, the rules provide that
if an incumbent's license expires or is cancelled, the spectrum will revert to the geographic area
licensee.  We believe it would be inconsistent with this scheme to accept competing applications against
a site-specific incumbent's application to renew.  We further find that TBA has not shown unique facts
or circumstances that would support a waiver.
    
6.  We will consider separately whether, in light of TBA's allegations, Norark's renewal application
should be granted or denied.  In the event Norark is found unqualified to hold this license, authorization
to serve this area will revert to the winner of the relevant geographic area license or licenses.

                         IV. CONCLUSION

7.   For the reasons discussed herein, we dismiss the mutually exclusive application filed by TBA
against the renewal application of Norark.


                      V. ORDERING CLAUSES

8.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i) and 309 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 309, and Section 0.331 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, the application filed by Talk Back Arkansas, Inc. IS DISMISSED.






  
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                              Jeffrey S. Steinberg
                              Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division
                              Wireless Telecommunications Bureau