Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

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



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

In the Matter of                 )    EB Docket No. 02-21
                                )
Peninsula Communications, Inc.   )
                                )    File No. EB 01-IH-0609
Licensee of stations             )    FRN: 0001-5712-15
KGTL, Homer, Alaska;             )    Facility ID Nos. 52152
KXBA(FM), Nikiski, Alaska;       )    86717
KWVV-FM, Homer, Alaska; and      )    52145
KPEN-FM, Soldotna, Alaska.       )    52149
                                 )
Licensee   of   FM    translator )
stations1                        )    52150
K292ED, Kachemak City, Alaska;   )    52157
K285DU, Homer, Alaska;           )    52158 and 52160
K285EG   and   K272DG,   Seward, )
Alaska                           )
                                )
Former licensee of FM            )
translator stations2 K285EF,     )
Kenai, Alaska;                   )
K283AB, Kenai/Soldotna, Alaska;  )
K257DB, Anchor Point, Alaska; 
K265CK, Kachemak City, Alaska; 
K272CN, Homer, Alaska; and
K274AB   and   K285AA,   Kodiak, 
Alaska


                       ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

   Adopted: February 1, 2002            Released:   February   6, 

2002

By the Commission:  

     1.  In this Order, pursuant to Sections 312(a), 312(c) and 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
``Act''), 47 U.S.C.  312(a), 312(c) and 503(b), we commence a 
hearing proceeding to determine whether the above-captioned 
licenses held by Peninsula Communications, Inc. (``Peninsula'') 
should be revoked.  Peninsula has continued to operate the seven 
captioned unlicensed FM translators following our warning that 
continued unauthorized operation might lead to possible revocation of all of Peninsula's Commission licenses.3  Such 
operations not only violate Section 301 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  
301, but also are in blatant disregard of our prior order to 
terminate such operations,4 and thus in apparent violation of 
Section 416(c) of the Act.  Peninsula's continued refusal to obey 
a direct Commission order, which has not been stayed or otherwise 
modified, calls into question Peninsula's fitness to remain a 
Commission licensee.  See 47 U.S.C.  312(a)(2) and (a)(4).  See 
also Policy Statement on Character Qualifications in Broadcast 
Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986) (``Character Policy 
Statement'') (subsequent history omitted).  Moreover, as 
explained herein, our order to terminate operations on the seven 
translators continues to be valid, and Peninsula is obligated to 
comply with it.  
 
                           DISCUSSION

     2.  The background of this case is discussed at length in 
the NAL and related Forfeiture Order issued in connection with 
Peninsula's violation of Section 301 of the Act.5  In our May 
2001 MO&O, the Commission ordered Peninsula to cease operating 
seven FM translator stations.  It is undisputed that Peninsula 
has not complied with our order.  Peninsula has indicated that it 
intends to continue to operate despite the Commission's order 
until the D.C. Circuit rules on its appeal of the May 2001 MO&O.6 

    3.  Peninsula has argued that it is justified in continuing 
to operate despite the Commission's order pursuant to sections 
1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.62 
and 73.3523, because its renewal applications are still 
``pending.''  We disagree.  As a preliminary matter, we note 
that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue 
operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply 
because it believes such order to be unlawful.  As the Act 
specifically provides:

          All such orders shall continue in force for the 
          period of time specified in the order or until the 
          Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction 
          issues a superseding order.7

          It shall be the duty of every person, its agents 
          and employees, and any receiver or trustee 
          thereof, to observe and comply with such orders so 
          long as the same shall remain in effect.8
 
 In any event, neither rule cited by Peninsula authorized it to 
  continue broadcasting after the date  specified in the May 2001 MO&O.  Section 1.62 of our rules 
  provides that a renewal applicant's license ``shall continue 
  in effect ... until such time as the Commission shall make a 
  final determination with respect to the renewal 
  application.''9  Here, the Commission made such a final 
  determination.  The fact that an appeal is pending is 
  irrelevant for purposes of section 1.62, as the Commission 
  held in Mobilcom Pittsburg, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 509 (1994).  As 
  for 47 C.F.R.  73.3523, the definition of a pending 
  application on which Peninsula relies is expressly restricted 
  by subsection (d) of that rule to the operation of that rule 
  alone.  Section 73.3523 seeks to prevent a competing applicant 
  who filed against a renewal application from receiving 
  ``greenmail'' from the renewal applicant.  That rule has 
  absolutely nothing to do with this case.  Hence, neither rule 
  provides any justification for Peninsula's continued operation 
  of the captioned translators after the date specified in the 
  May 2001 MO&O (that is, after midnight May 19, 2001).10  
     
     4.  Peninsula also contends that the D.C. Circuit Court's 
September 6, 2001, Order,11 raises questions about the finality 
of the May 2001 MO&O.  We disagree.  That order merely requests a 
status report and does not purport to find that the May 2001 MO&O 
was not a final decision as to the status of the seven FM 
translators.  In any event, the fact that an order may not be 
final does not affect a party's obligation to comply with such 
order.  Next, Peninsula argues that 47 U.S.C.  312(g)'s mandate 
for the cancellation of licenses for stations that remain silent for any 
consecutive 12-month period justifies Peninsula's continued 
operation pending its appeal in order to preserve those licenses.  
Again, we disagree.  As matters now stand, the seven FM 
translator licenses are no longer in effect.  Hence, 47 U.S.C.  
312(g), which by its terms applies to licensed stations that 
remain silent for one year, is inapposite.  In any event, the 
fact that compliance with an order might negatively impact 
Peninsula does not justify ignoring such an order.  Finally, 
Peninsula submits that it had a right to a hearing prior to the 
dismissal of its seven translator licenses pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 
 309(e) or 312(c).  Peninsula is mistaken.  Peninsula had 
received and accepted a conditional grant of its 1995 renewal 
applications for the translators in 1997.  Having failed to 
fulfill the condition despite having years to do so, Peninsula 
forfeited its licenses and has no entitlement to a hearing.  See 
P & R Temmer v. FCC, 743 F.2d 918, 928 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 
(termination of license for failure to meet license condition did 
not require hearing).  In any event, even if Peninsula wins on 
this argument in court, that does not justify its failure to 
comply with the Commission's order. 

 5.  We have considered and rejected Peninsula's contentions.  
  None of the rule or statutory provisions cited by Peninsula 
  authorized in any way its operation of the translators once 
  the May 2001 MO&O became effective.  We did not provide for 
  continued operation of Peninsula's translators in our May 2001 
  MO&O, and, absent a stay of that order,12 Peninsula was 
  required to terminate operations upon that order's effective 
  date.  See 47 U.S.C.  408, 416(c).  Peninsula did not do so.  
  Instead, it has chosen to defy our order.  We conclude that 
  Peninsula's continued failure to obey our May 2001 MO&O belies 
  its claim that it has acted as a conscientious and responsible 
  broadcast licensee.  We further conclude that Peninsula's 
  defiance raises extremely serious questions as to whether 
  Peninsula has the character qualifications to continue as a 
  licensee, regardless of whether it ultimately prevails in 
  court on the appeal of our May 2001 MO&O.

                        ORDERING CLAUSES

     6.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 
312(a)(2), 312(a)(4) and 312(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  
312(a)(2), 312(a)(4) and 312(c), and section 1.91 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.91, Peninsula Communications, 
Inc. is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why its licenses for 
broadcast stations KGTL, Homer; KXBA(FM), Nikiski; KWVV-FM, 
Homer; KPEN-FM, Soldotna; and its licenses for FM translator 
stations K292ED, Kachemak City; K295DU, Homer; K285EG and 
K272DG, Seward, all in Alaska, SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED.  In the 
event the D.C. Circuit reinstates the licenses for former FM 
translator stations K285EF, Kenai; 283AB, Kenai/Soldotna; 
K257DB, Anchor Point; K265CK, Kachemak City; K272CN, Homer, and 
K274AB and K285AA, Kodiak, all in Alaska, we intend that all 
such licenses shall be included in this Order to Show Cause.  
Peninsula shall appear before an Administrative Law Judge at a 
time and place to be specified in a subsequent Administrative 
Law Judge order and give evidence upon the following issues:  

          (a)  To determine the facts and circumstances 
            surrounding Peninsula Communications, Inc.'s 
            operation of former FM translator stations 
            285EF, Kenai; K283AB, Kenai/Soldotna; K257DB, 
            Anchor Point; K265CK, Kachemak City; K272CN, 
            Homer; and K274AB and K285AA, Kodiak, all in 
            Alaska, subsequent to August 29, 2001, contrary 
            to the Commission's order in Peninsula 
            Communications, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 11364 (2001), 
            and related violation of Section 416(c) of the 
            Act;

          (b)  To determine, in light of the evidence 
            adduced pursuant to issue (a), whether 
            Peninsula Communications, Inc. has the 
            requisite character qualifications to be a 
            Commission licensee and thus whether its 
            captioned broadcast and FM translator licenses, 
            including any former licenses reinstated, 
            should be revoked.     

     7.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, to avail itself of the 
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at a hearing in 
this proceeding, Peninsula Communications, Inc., pursuant to 
section 1.91(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.91(c), 
SHALL, within thirty days of its receipt of this ORDER TO SHOW 
CAUSE, FILE with the Commission a written appearance stating that 
it will appear at the hearing and present evidence on the issues 
specified above.  An unexcused failure to file a timely notice of 
appearance will constitute a waiver of such hearing, pursuant to 
section 1.92(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  
1.92(a)(1).  If the hearing is waived, Peninsula Communications, 
Inc. may submit a written signed statement pursuant to section 
1.92(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.92(b), which can 
deny, seek to mitigate or justify its unauthorized operation of 
the seven noted translators.  In the event Peninsula 
Communications, Inc. waives its right to a hearing, the Chief 
Administrative Law Judge (or presiding officer if one has been 
designated) shall, at the earliest practicable date, issue an 
order reciting the events or circumstances constituting a waiver 
of hearing, terminating the hearing, and certifying the case to 
the Commission.  See section 1.92(c) of the Commission's rules, 
47 C.F.R.  1.92(c).

     8.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 0.111(b) 
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111(b), the Enforcement 
Bureau shall serve as trial staff in this proceeding.

     9.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 312(d) 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(d), and section 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 Commission.

          10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 312(c) 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(c), a copy of this ORDER TO SHOW 
CAUSE shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to 
David F. Becker, President, Peninsula Communications, Inc., Post 
Office Box 109, Homer, Alaska 99603, with a copy to Jeffrey D. 
Southmayd, Esquire, Southmayd & Miller 1220 19th Street, N.W., 
Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
          



                              William F. Caton
                              Acting Secretary 
_________________________

1  The captioned licensed translators are currently operating in 
accordance with the Commission's  rules.  However, as  explained 
below,  because  Peninsula  continues   to  operate  the   seven 
captioned formerly licensed translators  subsequent to a  direct 
order  from  us   to  cease  such   operations,  the   captioned 
translators are now subject to possible revocation. 

2  We include the stations formerly held by Peninsula as part of 
our revocation proceeding to cover the eventuality that the D.C. 
Circuit could ultimately reinstate their licenses.  Should those 
licenses be so reinstated, the  conduct discussed in this  order 
raises serious questions whether Peninsula should be entitled to 
continue as licensee.  

3   See  Peninsula  Communications,  Inc.,  Notice  of  Apparent 
Liability for  Forfeiture and  Order, 16  FCC Rcd  16124  (2001) 
(``NAL''). 

4  See Peninsula Communications, Inc.,  16 FCC Rcd 11364  (2001) 
(``May 2001  MO&O'').  This  day we  also release  a  Forfeiture 
Order (FCC 02-31),  which imposes  a forfeiture  of $140,000  on 
Peninsula for its willful and repeated violations of Section 301 
of the  Act,  resulting  from the  continued  operation  of  the 
unlicensed translators. 

5  See notes 3 and 4, supra. 

6  See  Declaration of  David  F. Becker,  President,  Peninsula 
Communications, Inc., filed September 10, 2001.  Peninsula filed 
this sworn  declaration in  response to  the Commission's  order 
that it do so.  See also Peninsula Communications, Inc. v.  FCC, 
Case No. 01-1273 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 2001).

7  47 U.S.C.  408. 

8  47 U.S.C.  416(c). 

9  See also 5  U.S.C.  558(c)  (corresponding provision of  the 
Administrative Procedure Act states  that the license  continues 
until the renewal  application "has been  finally determined  by 
the agency''). 

10  Generally, we  permit a disqualified  broadcast licensee  to 
continue operations during judicial appeals to ensure service to 
the   public   until   the   court   resolves   the   licensee's 
qualifications.  See Pinelands, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6058, 6061 n. 12 
(1992).  In those situations, when we choose to allow  licensees 
to  continue  operations,  we  do  so  explicitly.   See,  e,g., 
Contemporary Media, Inc.,  13 FCC Rcd  14437, 14461 (1998).   In 
our May 2001 MO&O, we did not give Peninsula continued authority 
to operate.  We also note that, in light of the record, it would 
have been inappropriate for  us to do so.   As discussed in  the 
May 2001  MO&O  and NAL,  Peninsula  received in  November  1997 
conditional grants  of renewal  and assignment  applications  to 
remedy rule violations that had been ongoing since June 1, 1994.  
At the outset, Peninsula  accepted and endorsed the  conditional 
grants as fair and consistent with  the facts and the law.   See 
May 2001 MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd at 11368.  However, by the time of the 
May 2001 MO&O,  Peninsula had failed  to fulfill the  condition, 
namely,  consummating  the  assignment  of  its  FM   translator 
licenses, despite having years to do so and despite our explicit 
warning that not doing so would result in cancellation of  those 
licenses.  See Peninsula Communications,  Inc., 15 FCC Rcd  3293 
(2000) (``February 2000 MO&O'');  May 2001 MO&O.  Moreover,  the 
record further demonstrated  beyond doubt  that Peninsula  would 
never fulfill the condition.   In light of these  circumstances, 
granting Peninsula  authority  to  continue to  operate  its  FM 
translators during the pendency of  any judicial appeals of  the 
May  2001  MO&O  would   have  perpetuated  long-standing   rule 
violations  and  been  inconsistent  with  the  warning  in  our 
February 2000 MO&O.   We saw  no reason  to do  either.  We  had 
given Peninsula ample time to meet the condition imposed in 1997 
and come into compliance with 47 C.F.R.  74.1232(d).                  

11  Peninsula  Communications, Inc.  v.  FCC, Case  No.  01-1273 
(D.C. Circuit).  In pertinent part, the Order requires Peninsula 
to ``file a status report addressing whether any proceedings  on 
the  FCC's  order  to   show  cause  [concerning  the   proposed 
modification of two FM  translator licenses for Seward,  Alaska] 
or any other proceedings related to the FCC's May 18, 2001 order 
remain pending before the FCC.  The parties are directed to file 
motions to govern proceedings  within 30 days  of the filing  of 
appellant's  status  report.    If  appellant's  status   report 
demonstrates that  any proceedings  on the  FCC's May  18,  2001 
order remain pending before the FCC, the parties should  address 
the effect of  such proceedings on  the court's jurisdiction  to 
hear this appeal.''  Peninsula filed the required status  report 
on September  20, 2001.   In response,  we filed  a ``Motion  to 
Govern Further Proceedings'' on  October 18, 2001.  Therein,  we 
argued that  the May  2001  MO&O is  final and  appealable  with 
respect to the  seven translators whose  licenses we  cancelled, 
and we urged the Court to issue a briefing schedule.  The  Court 
has not yet acted on our motion.

12  Peninsula observes that  it filed a motion  for stay of  our 
February  2000  MO&O,  which,  it  argues,  we  never   directly 
addressed.  It now  ``renews'' its request  that the  Commission 
stay its May 2001  MO&O pending a  final court determination  of 
Peninsula's   appeal.    We    dismiss   Peninsula's    request.  
Peninsula's request does not comply with section 1.44(e) of  our 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.44(e), which requires that stay requests be 
filed  as  separate  pleadings.  Moreover,  our  May  2001  MO&O 
modified in significant respects the February 2000 MO&O, thereby 
rendering moot  Peninsula's stay  request of  the February  2000 
MO&O.  In any event,  we note that the  mere pendency of such  a 
motion does not give Peninsula  the right to disobey our  direct 
order to terminate operations of the seven translators.  We also 
note that an order of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals staying a 
District  Court  preliminary   injunction  against   Peninsula's 
continued operation pending Peninsula's  appeal of the  District 
Court's order (United States v. Peninsula Communications,  Inc., 
Case No. 01-35965 (9th Cir.), Order, November 21, 2001) does not 
affect the  continuing validity  of  the Commission's  May  2001 
MO&O.  Even if the 9th Circuit's order did have such an  effect, 
Peninsula's defiance  of the  May 2001  MO&O continued  for  six 
months, which,  by  itself,  would  be  a  sufficient  basis  to 
commence this revocation proceeding.