*Pages 1--2 from Microsoft Word - 18443.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 169 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Peninsula Communications, Inc. Former licensee of FM translator stations K285EF, Kenai, Alaska; K283AB, Kenai/ Soldotna, Alaska; K257DB, Anchor Point, Alaska; K265CK, Kachemak City, Alaska; K272CN, Homer, Alaska; and K274AB and K285AA, Kodiak, Alaska ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB 01- IH- 0403 NAL/ Acct No. 200132080060 FRN: 0001- 5712- 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 10, 2002 Released: June 12, 2002 By the Commission: 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (" Order") we deny a March 8, 2002, Petition for Reconsideration (“ Petition”) filed by Peninsula Communications, Inc. (“ Peninsula”), which seeks reconsideration of our February 6, 2002, Forfeiture Order 1 that assessed a forfeiture of one hundred forty thousand dollars ($ 140,000) against Peninsula. 2. In large part Peninsula simply rehashes arguments that we have previously considered and rejected. We need not address those arguments again. We take this opportunity to briefly address Peninsula’s two new arguments. First, we reject Peninsula’s argument that we should rescind the Forfeiture Order because Peninsula was not served a copy of it. Our records include a certified mail receipt indicating service on Peninsula. Moreover, given its timely filing of the Petition, Peninsula obviously suffered no harm from any alleged defect in service. 2 Second, we reject Peninsula’s argument that we should not have issued the Forfeiture Order because the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals (“ 9 th Circuit Court”) stayed a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court in Alaska against Peninsula’s continued operation of the above- captioned translators pending Peninsula’s appeal of the District Court’s order. As the 9 th Circuit Court recently observed in denying Peninsula’s appeal, 3 only the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals (“ D. C. Circuit Court”) is empowered to affirm or reverse our order that terminated Peninsula’s authority to operate the translators. 4 Peninsula filed an appeal of 1 Peninsula Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 2832 (2002) (“ Forfeiture Order”). 2 Peninsula’s suggestion that a lack of Federal Register publication of the Forfeiture Order warrants its rescission is without merit because there is no requirement for Federal Register publication of a forfeiture order. 3 See United States of America v. Peninsula Communications, Inc., No. 01- 35965 (9 th Cir. April 22, 2002). 4 See Peninsula Communications, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 11364 (2001) (“ Termination Order”). 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 169 2 our Termination Order with the D. C. Circuit Court; 5 however, Peninsula neither sought nor received a stay of that order. The Termination Order thus remained in effect, and Peninsula’s failure to comply with it resulted in willful and repeated violations of 47 U. S. C. § 301, which warranted a forfeiture. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Peninsula Communications, Inc. IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 5 Peninsula Communications, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01- 1273 (D. C. Cir. June 15, 2001). 2