******************************************************** 
                      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                 )
                                )
Peninsula Communications, Inc.   )    File No. EB 01-IH-0403
                                 )    NAL/Acct No. 200132080060
Former    licensee     of     FM )    FRN: 0001-5712-15
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


                  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 Order1that 
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 9th Circuit Court of 
Appeals (``9th 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 9th 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 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 
_________________________

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 (9th Cir. April 22, 2002). 

4  See Peninsula Communications, Inc.,  16 FCC Rcd 11364  (2001) 
(``Termination Order''). 

5  Peninsula Communications, Inc. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1273 (D.C. 
Cir. June 15, 2001).