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                   )                        
)
ENTERGY SECURITY CORPORATION  )    File No.  920EF0059
                              )
Operator of Fixed Microwave Service Stations      )
WNEP492 and WNEH696 in Metarie and New  )
Orleans, Louisiana                 )


                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:   December 6, 1999                       Released:  
December 7, 1999

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.  Introduction

     1.                                 In  this  Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, we grant  a request, filed on October 29, 
1999,   by  Entergy   Security  Corporation   (``Entergy''), 
operator  of Fixed  Microwave Service  Stations WNEP492  and 
WNEH696, Metarie  and New Orleans, Louisiana,  to reduce the 
forfeiture  proposed in  Notice  of  Apparent Liability  for 
Forfeiture,  DA  99-1936,  (Wireless Tel.  Bureau,  released 
October 1,  1999) (``NAL'').  We find that  Entergy acquired 
control  of  those  two stations  without  prior  Commission 
consent,   in   violation   of   Section   310(d)   of   the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'')1 and former 
Section 101.53(a) of the  Commission's Rules.2  We conclude, 
based  upon the  information  presented by  Entergy, that  a 
forfeiture in  the amount of  $9,000 is appropriate  in this 
instance. 

                       II. Background

     2.   In  1997, Entergy,  a  wholly-owned subsidiary  of 
Entergy  Corporation,3  was  engaged in  ``the  business  of 
providing remote alarm monitoring services . . . utiliz[ing] 
telephone landlines  and/or wireless facilities  to receive, 
process  and transmit  emergency  and other  information.''4  
Entergy merged with Armor Systems, Inc. (``Armor''), another 
alarm monitoring service provider,  and the parties ``closed 
the  transaction  on  October  15, 1997.''5   Prior  to  the 
merger, the stations in question were licensed to Armor.6

     3.   Entergy acquired control of  the two stations as a 
result  of the  October 1997  merger.  On  January 4,  1999, 
Entergy filed an FCC Form 415 to assign Armor's two stations 
to  Entergy.7   Entergy also  filed  a  request for  special 
temporary authority (``STA'') to operate the stations during 
the pendency of the assignment application.8  In response to 
a Commission letter9 seeking  more information regarding the 
assignment,   Entergy  explained   that  the   merger  ``had 
inadvertently closed  without prior FCC approval  because of 
[Armor's  and  Entergy's]  unfamiliarity with  the  approval 
requirement.''10  Entergy  further stated that it  ``did not 
learn of  the prior approval requirement  resulting from the 
merger  until approached  about  a subsequent  transaction11 
involving  an acquisition  of  the  merged entity.''12   The 
Commission granted  the STA on January  15, 1999.  Entergy's 
assignment application remains pending.

                      III.  Discussion

     4.   In its response to the  NAL, Entergy does not deny 
acquiring control of these  stations without obtaining prior 
Commission  approval.13    It  argues,  however,   that  the 
proposed forfeiture  should be reduced because  of Entergy's 
record of  compliance with the Commission's  Rules.  In that 
regard, Entergy represents:

     For many years, Entergy, through its subsidiaries, 
     has  held numerous  radio licenses  issued by  the 
     Commission to  utilize radio  facilities necessary 
     for the conduct of its business operations.  These 
     facilities have  been operated  for many  years in 
     compliance   with  the   Commission's  rules   and 
     regulations,  and  Entergy  has not  received  any 
     violation notices or fines from the Commission for 
     rules violations.14

Entergy  cites several  cases for  the proposition  that the 
Commission  will reduce  forfeitures when  a licensee  has a 
record of compliance with the Commission's Rules.15  Entergy 
specifically asks  that the forfeiture amount  be reduced to 
$9,000.16

     5.   Our  records   show  that   Entergy  has   been  a 
Commission licensee  since 1994, and  there is no  record of 
Entergy  having  been  previously cited  for  violating  the 
Commission's rules  with respect to its  Title III licenses.  
We  note that  Entergy  Services, Inc.,  a company  commonly 
owned  with Entergy,  was  recently found  to have  violated 
certain Commission  rules with respect to  the rates charged 
for pole  attachments.17  While  we believe this  finding is 
relevant to an evaluation  of Entergy's record of compliance 
with the  Commission's Rules, the types  of violations found 
in  that proceeding  could not  take place  at the  stations 
involved  in  this  case,  and there  is  no  evidence  that 
Entergy's   violations   were   deliberate.    Under   these 
circumstances, we  believe its overall record  of compliance 
with  the Commission's  Rules should  be viewed  positively.  
Section  503(b)(2)(D) of  the Act  requires us  to consider, 
inter alia, ``any  history of prior offenses''  in setting a 
forfeiture amount.  In light  of Entergy's general record of 
compliance  with the  Commission's  Rules, we  agree that  a 
reduction of the proposed  forfeiture amount from $12,000 to 
$9,000 is appropriate.  Accordingly, we will impose a $9,000 
forfeiture.

            IV.  Conclusion and Ordering Clauses

     6.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED  that the ``Request for 
Reduction  or Remission  of Forfeiture''  filed October  29, 
1999,  by Entergy  Security  Corporation IS  GRANTED to  the 
extent Entergy seeks a  reduction of the proposed forfeiture 
amount from $12,000 to $9,000.

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,  pursuant to Section 503(b) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,18 and Section 
1.80 of the Commission's Rules,19 that Entergy SHALL FORFEIT 
to  the  United States  the  sum  of nine  thousand  dollars 
($9,000)20  for willfully  and repeatedly  violating Section 
310(d) of the Communications of Act of 1934, as amended, and 
former Section 101.53(a) of the Commission's Rules.

     8.   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED   that  a  copy  of  this 
Memorandum  Opinion and  Order shall  be sent,  by Certified 
Mail/Return Receipt  Requested, to Denise C.  Redmann, Esq., 
Senior Counsel,  Entergy Services, Inc., 639  Loyola Avenue, 
26th Floor,  New Orleans, Louisiana 70113,  and to Entergy's 
counsel,  John A.  Prendergast, Esq.,  Blooston, Mordkofsky, 
Jackson  & Dickens,  2120 L  Street, N.W.,  Washington, D.C. 
20037.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau


_________________________

1  47 U.S.C.  310(d).

2  47 C.F.R.  101.53(a).  That rule was replaced by Section 
1.948 of  the Commission's Rules  on February 12,  1999.  In 
the Matter of Biennial Review - Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 
22,  24,  26,  27, 80,  87,  90,  95,  97,  and 101  of  the 
Commission's Rules to Facilitate  the Development and Use of 
the   Universal    Licensing   System   in    the   Wireless 
Telecommunications  Services,  13   FCC  Rcd  21027  (1998).  
Section 101.53 is applicable  here because Entergy filed its 
authorization  request  prior  to  the  February  12,  1999, 
effective date.

3   See  Application  of  Sonitrol  Southeast,  Inc.  for  a 
Determination  of  Exempt  Telecommunications  Status  Under 
Section  34 of  the Public  Utility Holding  Company Act  of 
1935, as Added by Section  103 of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996, 12 FCC Rcd 10429 (OGC 1997).

4  Application   of  Entergy  ETHC  Merger   Company  for  a 
Determination  of  Exempt  Telecommunications  Status  Under 
Section  34 of  the Public  Utility Holding  Company Act  of 
1935, as Added by Section  103 of the Telecommunications Act 
of  1996, 12  FCC Rcd  10427,  10428 (OGC  1997).  See  also 
Letter  Dated  June  15,  1999,  from  Glenn  L.  Schroeder, 
Authorized Employee  of Entergy  at the  Time of  Merger, to 
Sharon  C.  Bowers,  Informal Complaints  &  Public  Inquiry 
Branch,   Federal  Communications   Commission  (``Schroeder 
Letter'').
 
5  See Schroeder Letter. 

6 See Application for  Authorization for Microwave Services, 
Exhibit, filed January 4, 1999, by Entergy Security.

7  Id.

8  See Request for STA, filed January 14, 1999, by Entergy.
 
9  See  Letter Dated  May 17, 1999,  from Sharon  C. Bowers, 
Chief,   Informal  Complaints   &  Public   Inquiry  Branch, 
Enforcement  &   Consumer  Information   Division,  Wireless 
Telecommunications  Bureau,   to  John  A.   Prendergast  of 
Blooston,  Mordkofsky,   Jackson  &  Dickens,   counsel  for 
Entergy.
 
10  See Schroeder Letter, supra.

11   See  Application  for Authorization  in  the  Microwave 
Services filed  January 4,  1999, by ADT  Security Services, 
Inc., for  assignment of  stations WNEP492 and  WNEH696 from 
Entergy to ADT.

12  See Schroeder Letter, supra.

13  See ``Request for Reduction or Remission of Forfeiture'' 
filed October  29, 1999  by Entergy  (``Entergy Response''), 
pp. 2-4. 

14  Id., p. 2.

15  Id.,  pp. 2-4, citing Courtesy  Communications, Inc., 14 
FCC Rcd 4198 (1999), Liberty Communications, Inc., DA 94-648 
(Com. Car. Bureau  1994), David L. Hollingsworth,  7 FCC Rcd 
6640 (Com. Car. Bureau 1992).

16  Id., p. 6. Entergy also argues that a $12,000 forfeiture 
would be unnecessarily punitive.  Entergy Response, pp. 4-5.  
In light of our action  reducing the forfeiture, we need not 
address that argument.

17  Texas  Cable and Telecommunications Association,  et al. 
v. Entergy  Services, Inc.,  14 FCC  Rcd 9138  (Cable Bureau 
1999).

18  47 U.S.C.  503(b).

19  47 C.F.R.  1.80.

20  Payment  of the  forfeiture may be  made by  credit card 
through the Commission's Billings  and Collections Branch at 
(202) 418-1995 or by mailing  a check or similar instrument, 
payable  to   the  order   of  the   Federal  Communications 
Commission, to  the Federal Communications  Commission, P.O. 
Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois  60673-7482. The payment should 
note the file number 920EF0059.