Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



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


In the Matter of                             )    EB DOCKET 
NO. 00-156
                                   )
Ronald Brasher                     )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations          )
WPLQ202, KCG967, WPLD495,WPKH771,       )
WPKI739, WPKI733, WPKI707, WIL990,           )
WPLQ475, WPLY658, WPKY903, WPKY901,          )
WPLZ533, WPKI762, and WPDU262           )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )    
Patricia Brasher                        )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations          )
WPJI362, WPKY900, and WPLD570           )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
David Brasher                           )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations          )
WPBU651 and WPJR757                )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
D.L. Brasher                            )    
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR750   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
Carolyn S. Lutz                         )    
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR763   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
O.C. Brasher                            )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR761   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
Jim Sumpter                             )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR725   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
Norma Sumpter                      )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR739   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
Melissa Sumpter                         )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJS437   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
Jennifer Hill                           )    
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR740   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )Metroplex Two-Way Radio Service              )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations          )
WPHS735, WPKP673, WPKM797,              )
WPLZ841 and WPJR754                )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )
                                   )
DLB Enterprises, Inc.                        )
Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations          )
WPKM796, WPKL830, WPJY510, WPLU490,          )
WPBH830, WPKP667, WPLY713,  WPMH354,    )
WPMH477, and WPKY978,                   )
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas                )         
WNAH223                            )
Cleora ,Oklahoma                        )
                                   )
DLB Enterprises, Inc.,                  )
Applicant for Conventional Industrial/Business    )    File 
                                   Nos. AO17774, 
Private Land Mobile Licenses       )    AO20241 and AO19157
Dallas, Texas                           )         
                                   )
Applicant for Conventional Industrial/Business    )    File 
                                   No. AO18555. 
Private Land Mobile Licenses       )    
Crowley, Texas                          )         
                                   )
Applicant for Trunked Industrial/Business    )    File No. 
                                   AO20755. 
Private Land Mobile Licenses       )    
Crowley, Texas                          )    
                                   )
Applicant for Assignment of Private Land Mobile   )    File 
No. D110637
Station WPJR740 from Jennifer Hill           )
Dallas, Texas                           )
                                   )
Applicant for Assignment of Private Land Mobile   )    
Stations from Ronald Brasher (WPKI707,       )
WPKI739, WPKI733 and WPLQ475), Norma         )    File No. 
D113240
Sumpter (WPJR739), D.L. Brasher (WPJR750),        )
David Brasher (WPJR757), Jim Sumpter         )
(WPJR725), Jennifer Hill (WPJR740),               )
Metroplex Two-Way Radio Service (WPJR754),   )
O.C. Brasher (WPJR761), Melissa Sumpter           )    
(WPJS437) Dallas, Texas                 )
                                   )
Applicant for Assignment of Private Land Mobile   )    File 
No. D113242
Station                                 )
                                   )
Applicant for Modification of Private Land Mobile ) 
Stations WPKM796, and WPKL830, and           )    File No. 
D113241
Assignment of Private Land Mobile            )
Stations WPKI733, WPLQ475, WPKI707      ) 
and WPKI739 from Ronald Brasher              )
and Assignment of Private Land                    ) 
Mobile Station WPKM797 from Metroplex        )
Dallas, Texas                           )       ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER 
            AND NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING


     Adopted:     August 23, 2000            Released:  
August 29, 2000


By the Commission:

                      I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Order, we commence a hearing proceeding to 
determine  whether the  above-captioned  licenses should  be 
revoked; whether the  above-captioned applications should be 
granted; and whether forfeitures should be imposed on one or 
more  of  the  captioned  entities.  The  record  before  us 
suggests  that   Ronald  and  Patricia  Brasher,   with  the 
assistance of David Brasher,  Diane Brasher and Carolyn Lutz 
(collectively,   the  ``Brashers''),   may  have   submitted 
fraudulent  applications to  the Commission  in the  name of 
deceased persons, as well as in  the name of persons who had 
no knowledge  of, or  involvement in, the  applications.  We 
also have evidence  that some or all  of the above-captioned 
licensees may have misrepresented facts to, or lacked candor 
with, the Commission and  abused the Commission's processes. 
Accordingly, we are commencing a proceeding to determine the 
extent  to which  each captioned  licensee has  violated the 
Commission's  rules  and  to determine  whether  the  above-
captioned  licensees  are  qualified  to  remain  or  become 
Commission licensees.

                       II. BACKGROUND

     2.   The  captioned entities  are, or  seek to  become, 
private land mobile licensees.   The Brashers operate DLB, a 
business utilizing the captioned two-way private carrier and 
commercial land  mobile radio service stations.   DLB, doing 
business  as Metroplex,  offers  subscription two-way  radio 
service to  customers on these  stations, a number  of which 
are operated together as a trunked system.  On May 17, 1997, 
Net  Wave  Communications,  Inc.   (``Net  Wave'')  filed  a 
Petition  For Order  To Show  Cause (``Petition'')  with the 
Commission   alleging,  inter   alia,  that   the  captioned 
licensees had misrepresented facts to the Commission and had 
engaged in  unauthorized transfers of control.   In response 
to  Net  Wave's  petition,  Commission  staff  commenced  an 
investigation.1   The  staff's investigation  revealed  that 
Ronald Brasher, on behalf of  DLB, intended to construct and 
to operate a large radio system.  The frequency coordinator, 
Personal    Communications   Industry    Association,   Ltd. 
(``PCIA''),  told him  that it  was PCIA/FCC  policy not  to 
coordinate more  than five  channels per site,  per license.  
As  a consequence,  according to  Ronald Brasher,  he sought 
others who might obtain licenses  for stations that he could 
manage.  Jim Sumpter, Norma  Sumpter, and Jennifer Hill have 
declared that Ron  Brasher told them that he  wanted them to 
obtain  licenses,  which  they  would then  assign  to  him, 
because he could not  submit additional license applications 
in his own name.

     3.   All of the above-captioned licensees or applicants 
are related  to and/or  otherwise connected with  Ronald and 
Patricia Brasher.  In this regard, David Brasher, also known 
as D.L.  Brasher, is a  son of Ronald and  Patricia Brasher. 
Carolyn  Lutz  and  Norma  Sumpter  are  Patricia  Brasher's 
sisters.  Norma Sumpter is also Jim Sumpter's wife; they, in 
turn, are the parents of  Melissa Sumpter and Jennifer Hill.  
O.C. Brasher, deceased, was  Ronald Brasher's father.  Other 
family members involved in this matter are Ruth Bearden, the 
deceased mother  of Ronald  Brasher, and Diane  Brasher, the 
wife of  David Brasher,  and the  corporate Secretary  and a 
Director of DLB.

     4.   In July  1996, Ronald  Brasher, on behalf  of DLB, 
submitted applications to PCIA in the name of, and appearing 
to bear the signatures of, O.C. Brasher, Ruth Bearden, Norma 
Sumpter,  Jim Sumpter,  Melissa Sumpter  and Jennifer  Hill. 
PCIA,  in   turn,  submitted   these  applications   to  the 
Commission and Commission staff subsequently granted each of 
the  applications.2   The  filing  fees  for  all  of  these 
applications  were  paid  with  checks  inscribed  with  the 
``Brasher'' name and business address and purportedly signed 
by Patricia Brasher.  

     5.   Initially, Ronald Brasher claimed, with respect to 
the  stations licensed  to  entities or  persons other  than 
himself,  Metroplex  and  DLB,  that  he  acted  as  manager 
pursuant to  oral agreements,  now memorialized  in writing, 
with the named  licensees, and that he was  subject to their 
supervision and control.  However,  O.C. Brasher had died in 
1995  and  Ruth Bearden  had  died  in  1991, prior  to  the 
submission   of  the   applications  in   July  1996.   When 
specifically   questioned   regarding  the   submission   of 
applications  in the  name of  his deceased  parents, Ronald 
Brasher asserted  that he submitted the  application of O.C. 
Brasher to the  frequency coordinator prior to  the death of 
O.C. Brasher  on August  17, 1995 and  that, as  Executor of 
O.C.   Brasher's   estate,   he  submitted   an   assignment 
application in the name of O.C. Brasher in order to preserve 
an  asset of  that estate.3   Ronald Brasher  further stated 
that the  company he  hired to prepare  various applications 
mistakenly filed  Ruth Bearden's  application in  her name.4  
With respect to the licenses  issued to the Sumpters and Ms. 
Hill, while they  state that they were  approached by Ronald 
Brasher  about applying  for  FCC licenses,  they deny  ever 
knowing that they had stations  licensed in their name until 
after Net  Wave filed  its petition.   The Sumpters  and Ms. 
Hill  also state  that  the signatures  on the  applications 
filed in their names are  not theirs.  They also deny having 
any involvement  in the  construction or operation  of their 
respective stations.  They claim that they have not received 
any revenue or paid any expenses relating to those stations.

     6.  In response to a  Commission inquiry letter to DLB, 
Ronald  Brasher  reported  that   ``DLB  is  a  family-owned 
business .  . . without  a rigid hierarchy of  authority and 
responsibility.''5 Thus,  it appears  that other  members of 
the Brasher group participated in, knew of, or had reason to 
know  of  possible  misconduct.  David Brasher  is  a  Vice-
President of DLB  and Carolyn Lutz is  DLB's Office Manager.  
In  that capacity,  each was  involved in  the operation  of 
these stations  on a daily  basis. Each of the  Brashers was 
also aware of the death of  Ruth Bearden in 1991 and of O.C. 
Brasher  in  1995.   Nevertheless,  in  1999  David  Brasher 
executed  a management  agreement purportedly  on behalf  of 
O.C.  Brasher.6  In  sum, each  of the  Brashers engaged  in 
activities  that  collectively  raise  questions  about  the 
nature  and  extent of  their  involvement  in the  apparent 
violations.

                      III.  DISCUSSION
  
     7.  The circumstances described above raise substantial 
and  material questions  as to  whether the  above-captioned 
licensees  and  applicants are  qualified  to  remain or  to 
become Commission  licensees.7 It appears that  the Brashers 
have caused the filing of  applications in the names of dead 
people and in the names of  persons who did not ever know of 
the applications'  existence.  Furthermore, it  appears that 
the  motive for  this course  of  conduct was  to avoid  the 
strictures  of   PCIA  and/or   Section  90.313(c)   of  the 
Commission's rules,8  and that Ronald Brasher,  on behalf of 
DLB, obtained  control of more  channels than the  number to 
which  they  were,  or   he  thought  they  were,  entitled.  
Finally,  there  are serious  questions  as  to whether  the 
Brashers misrepresented  facts to or lacked  candor with the 
Commission.  If proven at  hearing, this sort of intentional 
and fraudulent conduct could  compel the conclusion that the 
perpetrators are not qualified to be Commission licensees.

     8.    Real Party-In-Interest/Control:   In Trustees for 
        the University of Pennsylvania, 69
FCC 2d 1394, 1396 (1978), the Commission noted: 

     The Congress demonstrated its special concern that 
     ultimate responsibility for  a station's operation 
     rests with  the party licensed by  this Commission 
     by imposing requirements that licensees notify the 
     Commission  when a  'transfer of  control' over  a 
     station was  proposed and  by further  requiring a 
     Commission finding that such a transfer will be in 
     the  public interest,  convenience, and  necessity 
     before it can be consummated.

That sentence refers to Section 310(d) of the Communications 
Act, 47 U.S.C.  310(d).  Section 310(d) prohibits de facto, 
as well as de jure,  transfers of control without Commission 
approval. See Lorain  Journal Co. v. FCC, 351  F.2d 824, 828 
(D.C. Cir.  1965), cert. denied,  383 U.S. 967  (1966).  The 
phrase ``real party-in-interest'' is used in connection with 
pending applications, while ``de  facto control'' is used in 
connection  with a  licensed station.   In either  case, the 
pertinent concern  is whether  someone other than  the named 
applicant or licensee is in control.  See Arnold L. Chase, 5 
FCC  Rcd 1642,  1648 n.5  (1990). The  test for  determining 
whether  an individual  is  a  real-party-in-interest in  an 
application  is whether  that individual  "has an  ownership 
interest  or is  or will  be in  a position  to actually  or 
potentially  control the  operation of  the station."   High 
Sierra  Broadcasting, Inc.,  96 FCC  2d 423,  427 (Rev.  Bd. 
1983).  In  determining whether de  facto control of  a non-
broadcast  license  or  facility  has  been  transferred  in 
violation of   310(d), the  Commission and the  courts have 
traditionally  relied  upon  a six-part  test  announced  in 
Intermountain Microwave, 24 RR 983 (1963).9  The six indicia 
of de facto control are: 

               (a) Does the  licensee have unfettered use of 
          all facilities and equipment?
               (b) Who controls daily operations?
               (c) Who determines and carries out the policy 
          decisions, including 
                     preparing and  filing applications with 
          the Commission? 
                (d)   Who  is   in  charge   of  employment, 
          supervision, and dismissal of 
                      personnel? 
                (e)  Who is  in  charge  of the  payment  of 
          financing obligations, including 
                     expenses arising out of operating? 
               (f) Who receives  monies and profits from the 
          operation of the facilities?  

While Ronald Brasher claims that  he was simply managing the 
stations, subject to the control  of others, it appears that 
several of the  named licensees were either  dead or unaware 
that they had licenses.  Moreover, the Sumpters and Jennifer 
Hill  state  that  they  neither received  any  monies  from 
station operations,  nor paid  any station  expenses.  Under 
those circumstances,  substantial and material  questions of 
fact  exist concerning  control  of the  stations.  We  will 
therefore  specify   real-party-in-interest  and   de  facto 
control issues.  

     9.  Abuse of Process:  We will also specify an abuse of 
process issue.   Abuse of  process is  a broad  concept that 
includes use  of a  Commission process  to achieve  a result 
that the process was not intended to achieve, or use of that 
process to subvert  the purpose the process  was intended to 
achieve. Broadcast Renewal Applicants,  3 FCC Rcd 5179, 5199 
n.  2 (1988).   ``It is  an abuse  of process  to specify  a 
surrogate  to  apply  for  a  station  so  as  to  deny  the 
Commission and the public the opportunity to review and pass 
on the qualifications of that  party.'' See Arnold L. Chase, 
5 FCC Rcd at 1643.   The information before us suggests that 
the principals  of DLB abused the  Commission's processes by 
filing  applications under  the names  of others  to acquire 
licenses and  stations that they  may not have been  able to 
acquire, and did  not think that they were  able to acquire, 
under their own  names.  The motive for doing  so appears to 
be to  avoid PCIA's policy  that it would coordinate  only a 
certain number of applications in  an area at any given time 
for any entity.  Another possible motivation would have been 
to  avoid  the  limitations  of  Section  90.313(c)  of  the 
Commission's  rules,  which  states, ``A  licensee  will  be 
required to show that an  assigned frequency pair is at full 
capacity before  it may be  assigned a second  or additional 
frequency pair.''  Another possible  abuse of process is the 
alleged  forgery  of  the  signatures of  the  Sumpters  and 
Jennifer  Hill  to  their applications.   The  Sumpters  and 
Jennifer Hill  deny that they signed  the applications filed 
in  their names.   If  one  or more  of  the parties  forged 
signatures  on   an  application   or  knowingly   filed  an 
application with  a forged signature, such  conduct would be 
an  abuse of  process because  such conduct  ``threatens the 
integrity of the  Commission's licensing processes.'' Policy 
Statement   on   Character   Qualifications   in   Broadcast 
Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1211 (1986).

     10.    Misrepresentation/Candor:    Finally,  we   will 
specify   a   misrepresentation/lack    of   candor   issue.  
Misrepresentation is  a false statement made  with intent to 
deceive, while lack of candor  is a concealment, evasion, or 
other failure to be fully informative, accompanied by intent 
to deceive.   Fox River Broadcasting,  Inc., 93 FCC  2d 127, 
129 (1983).  In Contemporary Media, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 214 
F.3d  187,  193  (D.C.  Cir.   June  16,  2000),  the  court 
recognized,  ``The FCC  relies  heavily on  the honesty  and 
probity  of its  licensees in  a regulatory  system that  is 
largely self-policing.''   The Court also stated,  ``[I]t is 
well  recognized  that  the  Commission  may  disqualify  an 
applicant who deliberately makes misrepresentations or lacks 
candor  in dealing  with  the  agency.''10  The  information 
before  us raises  several substantial  questions about  the 
honesty  of  the   above-captioned  licensees.   First,  the 
Brashers'  representations that  the Sumpters  and Ms.  Hill 
were actively involved in applying for their licenses and in 
supervising the  construction and operation of  the stations 
in  their names  is inconsistent  with the  Sumpters' denial 
that they  had any  such involvement.  Second,  the Brashers 
submitted   apparently   inconsistent   responses   to   the 
Commission  regarding their  involvement  with the  stations 
authorized to O.C. Brasher and to Ruth Bearden.  Despite the 
fact that  O.C. Brasher  and Ruth  I. Bearden  were deceased 
prior  to  submission of  any  application  in their  names, 
Ronald Brasher claimed that he acted under their supervision 
when  he  obtained  their licenses  and/or  constructed  and 
managed their stations.  He also stated that, as Executor of 
his father's  estate, he  signed O.C.  Brasher's name  to an 
assignment application,  but the application did  not reveal 
that O.C.  Brasher was  deceased.  David Brasher  executed a 
management agreement, purportedly on behalf of O.C. Brasher, 
on March 29, 1999, three  and one-half years after the death 
of O.C. Brasher.   DLB then submitted that  agreement to the 
Commission.   Third, Patricia  Brasher denies  providing any 
assistance  or  supervision  regarding  the  preparation  or 
filing of any  applications in the names of  O.C. Brasher or 
Ruth Bearden,  yet checks  bearing the name  ``Brasher'' and 
purporting to bear  Patricia Brasher's signature accompanied 
each application submitted to the Commission regarding these 
licensees.   The   inconsistencies  between   the  available 
evidence  and  the  licensees'  statements  require  further 
exploration  in a  hearing.   Accordingly,  we will  specify 
appropriate issues.

                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     11.   Accordingly,  IT  IS ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to 
Sections 309(e), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), 312(c) and 503 of the 
Act, 47  U.S.C. 309(e), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4),  312(c) and 
503,  the  above?captioned  licenses  and  applications  are 
designated for  hearing in a consolidated  proceeding before 
an FCC Administrative  Law Judge, at a time and  place to be 
specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues: 

       (a)     To determine  whether any of  the above-
           captioned licensees  made misrepresentations 
           to,   and/or  lacked   candor  before,   the 
           Commission in  applications and/or responses 
           to Commission inquiries;

       (b)     To determine  whether any of  the above-
           captioned  licensees were  undisclosed real-
           parties-in-interest   or  willfully   and/or 
           repeatedly   violated     310(d)   of   the 
           Communications Act  of 1934, as  amended, by 
           engaging   in   unauthorized  transfers   of 
           control involving their respective stations;

        (c)    To   determine  whether    any  of   the 
           captioned  parties  abused the  Commission's 
           processes in  connection with the  filing of 
           applications  on  behalf  of  O.C.  Brasher, 
           Ruth   I.   Bearden,  Jim   Sumpter,   Norma 
           Sumpter, Melissa Sumpter or Jennifer Hill;

        (d)    To determine,  in light of  the evidence 
           adduced  pursuant to  the foregoing  issues, 
           whether  the  above-captioned licensees  are 
           basically  qualified  to  be  and/or  remain 
           Commission licensees; 

        (e)    To determine,  in light of  the evidence 
           adduced  pursuant to  the foregoing  issues, 
           whether  any or  all of  the above-captioned 
           licenses should be revoked; 

        (f)    To determine,  in light of  the evidence 
           adduced  pursuant to  the foregoing  issues, 
           whether  any or  all of  the above-captioned 
           applications should be granted.
     
     12.  IT  IS FURTHER  ORDERED that, irrespective  of the 
resolution of the foregoing  issues, it shall be determined, 
pursuant to  Section 503(b)(3)(A)  of the  Act, 47  U.S.C.  
503(b)(3)(A), whether an Order of Forfeiture shall be issued 
against  any or  each of  the parties  for having  willfully 
and/or repeatedly  violated Section  310(d) of the  Act. For 
the  violation of  Section 310(d)  of the  Act, the  maximum 
potential forfeiture liability for each of the parties shall 
be  $82,500.00.11   This  figure  is  set   based  upon  the 
seriousness of the alleged violations, the continuing nature 
of the alleged violations,  the apparent culpability of each 
party,  the  information  available  to  us  concerning  the 
financial condition of each party, the ability of each party 
to profit from  the alleged rule violations,  and the nature 
of the stations in question.

     13.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in connection with the 
potential  forfeiture liability  noted above,  this document 
constitutes notice, pursuant to  Section 503(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act.
     
     14.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to avail themselves of 
the opportunity to  be heard and to avail  themselves of the 
right to present evidence at a hearing in these proceedings, 
pursuant  to   1.91(c)  and 1.221(c)  of the  Commission's 
Rules, 47  C.F.R. 1.91(c)  and 1.221(c),  licensees Ronald 
Brasher,  Patricia  Brasher,  David Brasher,  D.L.  Brasher, 
Carolyn  S.  Lutz,  Jim   Sumpter,  Norma  Sumpter,  Melissa 
Sumpter, Jennifer Hill, DLB  Enterprises, Inc. and Metroplex 
Two-Way  Radio Service,  in  person or  by their  attorneys, 
shall each file, within 30 days after receipt of this Order, 
a  written appearance  stating that  it will  appear at  the 
hearing and  present evidence  on matters specified  in that 
Order.   If any  of  the  licensees fail  to  file a  timely 
written notice of  appearance, the right to  a hearing shall 
be  deemed  to  be  waived.   See  Section  1.92(a)  of  the 
Commission's rules.  Where a  hearing is waived the licensee 
may  submit a  written,  signed statement  of mitigation  or 
justification within 30 days of receipt of the Order to Show 
Cause.  See  Section 1.92(b) of the  Commission's rules.  In 
the  event the  right  to  a hearing  is  waived, the  Chief 
Administrative Law  Judge (or  presiding officer if  one has 
been designated)  shall, at  the earliest  practicable date, 
terminate  the  hearing  proceeding  with  respect  to  that 
particular licensee and certify  the case to the Commission, 
and  in the  regular course  of business,  an order  will be 
entered.  See Section 1.92(c) of the Commission's rules.  If 
a written notice of appearance is not timely filed on behalf 
of DLB  Enterprises within  20 days of  the mailing  of this 
Hearing Designation Order, or it  has not filed prior to the 
expiration  of  the specified  time  a  petition to  dismiss 
without prejudice or a petition to accept for good cause its 
written   appearance   beyond   the  specified   time,   its 
applications will be dismissed  with prejudice.  See Section 
1.221 of the Commission's rules.
     
     15.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to  312(d) of 
the  Communications  Act  of  1934, as  amended,  47  U.S.C. 
312(d) and  1.91(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  
1.91(d), the  burden of proceeding with  the introduction of 
evidence  and  the  burden  of   proof  shall  be  upon  the 
Enforcement Bureau  as to the issues  at  11 (a)-(e)  and  
12, above,  and that, pursuant  to 47 U.S.C.  Section 309(e) 
and Section 1.254  of the Commission's rules,  the burden of 
proceeding with the introduction  of evidence and the burden 
of proof shall be upon the  applicants as to the issues at  
11(f). 
     
     16.   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commission's 
Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this Order 
via  Certified  Mail  -  Return  Receipt  Requested  to  the 
captioned licensees and their counsel as follows:

     Robert Schwaninger, Esq.           John McVeigh, Esq.
     1835 K Street, N.W., Suite 650               12101 Blue 
Paper Trail
     Washington, D.C.  20006            Columbia,  MD 21044-
2787
.    
     DLB Enterprises, Inc.                   Jim Sumpter
     2244 Larson Lane                   18601 LBJ Freeway  
     Suite 104                          Town   East   Tower, 
Suite 500
     Dallas, TX  75229                  Mesquite, TX  75150

     Metroplex Two-Way Radio Service         Norma Sumpter  
     2244 Larson Lane, Suite 104             4008  Harbinger 
Drive
     Dallas, TX  75229                  Mesquite, TX  75150


     Ronald Brasher                     Melissa Sumpter
     2244 Larson Lane, Suite 104             4008  Harbinger 
Drive
     Dallas, TX  75229                  Mesquite, TX  75150
     
     Patricia A. Brasher                Jennifer Hill
     2244 Larson Lane, Suite 104             4312        Gus 
     Thomasson Road, Apt. 721
     Dallas, TX  75229                  Mesquite, TX  75150
     
     David L. Brasher                   Carolyn S. Lutz
     2910 West Bend Drive                    3000    Lambert 
Drive
     Irving, TX  75063-3113                  Mesquite,    TX  
75150

     D.L. Brasher                       Estate    of    O.C. 
Brasher
     222 Molina Drive                   224 Molina Drive
     Sunnyvale, TX  75182                    Sunnyvale,   TX  
75182

     
     17.  IT  IS FURTHER ORDERED  that the Secretary  of the 
Commission  shall cause  to  have this  Order  or a  summary 
thereof published in the Federal Register.

                      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                      Magalie Roman Salas
                      Secretary
_________________________

1 The Commission does not recognize a formal right to seek 
revocation of a license.  See, e.g., Danbury Cellular 
Telephone Company, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 4186, 4188 n.2 (CCB 
1991).  The Commission, however, has treated such requests 
as informal requests for action pursuant to Section 1.41 of 
the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.41.  In this case, the 
Petition was treated as an informal complaint.  An 
investigation was initiated to investigate the allegations 
made in the Petition.  This Order is based, not upon the 
Petition, but upon the results of the Bureau's investigation 
and, unless otherwise noted, the facts described in this 
Order were developed in the course of that independent 
investigation.
2  The  license issued to  Ruth Bearden for  Station WPJR762 
was cancelled in 1999 for failure to respond to a Commission 
staff inquiry regarding station construction and operation.

3 O.C. Brasher died on August 17, 1995.  However, the 
application filed in his name, and purporting to bear his 
signature, was dated June 17, 1996, was accompanied by a 
check, purportedly signed by Patricia Brasher, that was 
dated June 18, 1996 and was filed with the Commission on 
July 16, 1996.

4 Ruth Bearden died on April 22, 1991.  However, the 
application filed in her name, and purporting to bear her 
signature, was dated June 18, 1996, was accompanied by a 
check, purportedly signed by Patricia Brasher, that was 
dated June 18, 1996 and was filed with the Commission on 
July 17, 1996.

5 Letter from Ronald D. Brasher to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, 
Esq., Compliance and Litigation Branch, Enforcement and 
Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, submitted to the Commission by Dennis C. Brown, Esq. 
with transmittal letter dated December 7, 1998 (2 of Answer 
1).

6 See DLB's 308(b) Response letter from Michael L. Higgs, 
Esq., Schwaninger & Associates, Attorneys at Law, to Richard 
J. Arsenault, Esq., Compliance and Litigation Branch, 
Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, dated April 5, 1999 (Bates page 
nos. 0500-0510, Radio System Management and Marketing 
Agreement made on March 29, 1999 between O.C. Brasher 
(Licensee) and DLB Enterprises, Inc. (Agent) and executed by 
David L. Brasher for Licensee and Patricia A. Brasher for 
DLB.

7 The substantial-and-material-questions-of-fact standard of 
Section 309(d) and (e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 309(d) and (e), applies to applications 
and not revocation.  See MCI Telecommunications Corporation, 
3 FCC Rcd 509, n.17 (1988).  We, nevertheless, use it for 
convenience here in the revocation context as well.

8  47 C.F.R.  90.313(c).   That rule limits the eligibility 
of  any   particular  licensee  to  one   channel  until  it 
demonstrates that the channel  assigned is fully loaded.  In 
this service, a channel is  fully loaded when 90 mobiles are 
operating on the channel.

9 See also Telephone and Data  Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 19 F.3d 
42 (1994),  which arose from  an appeal of  the Commission's 
decision in  Ellis Thompson  Corp., 7  FCC Rcd  3932 (1992); 
LaStar Cellular Telephone Co., 5 FCC Rcd 3286 (1990); Norcom 
Communications Corporation, 13 RCC Rcd 21483 (1998).

10  Id. at 196 (D.C. Cir.  June 16, 2000), citing Schoenbohm  
v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243. 247 (D.C. Cir. 2000).  See also FCC v. 
WOKO,  Inc.   329  U.S.  223,  225-27   (1946);  Swan  Creek 
Communications,  Inc. v.  FCC, 39  F.3d 1217,  1221-24 (D.C. 
Cir. 1994); Garden  State Broad. Ltd. v. FCC,  996 F.2d 386, 
393-94 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

11 The figure contained in Section 503(b)(2)(c) of the Act, 
47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(c), is $75,000.  Pursuant to the Debt 
Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (110 
Stat. 1321-358), the maximum has been adjusted for inflation 
up to $82,500.  See Section 1.80(b)(5)(iii) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(5)(iii).