## Facts

- Peninsula Communications, Inc. operated two primary FM stations and multiple FM translator stations in Alaska.
- The FCC renewed Peninsula’s primary station licenses and conditionally renewed certain translator licenses, requiring assignment of the translator licenses to another entity.
- On May 19, 2001, after further proceedings, the FCC rescinded the conditional renewal grants for seven translator stations and ordered Peninsula to stop operating them.
- Peninsula continued operating the seven translator stations after May 19, 2001, stating it did so to protect its legal position and on advice of counsel.
- Peninsula sought judicial review of the FCC termination order in the D.C. Circuit but did not seek or obtain a stay of the FCC order.
- After administrative proceedings, the FCC issued a $140,000 forfeiture order on February 1, 2002, finding Peninsula’s post-termination operation was “willful” and “repeated” unauthorized broadcasting under the Communications Act.
- The United States brought a civil enforcement action in the District of Alaska to collect the forfeiture; both sides moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States was entitled to summary judgment enforcing the FCC’s final $140,000 forfeiture order for unauthorized operation of seven FM translator stations.
2. Whether Peninsula’s asserted defenses and mitigating factors—continued operation to preserve its litigation position, reliance on counsel, prior compliance history, and inability to pay—barred enforcement or required reduction of the forfeiture.

## Decision

- The court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment and denied Peninsula’s cross-motion.
- The court enforced the FCC’s $140,000 forfeiture order.
- The court relied on undisputed facts that the FCC ordered Peninsula to cease operations, Peninsula continued operating without authorization, and Peninsula never obtained a stay.

## Legal Principles

- A regulated entity must comply with an operative FCC order unless a stay is obtained; pending judicial review alone does not permit continued noncompliance.
- In an action to enforce an FCC forfeiture, the district court’s function is limited to enforcing the final agency forfeiture absent a legally recognized basis to refuse enforcement, not relitigating the underlying licensing dispute.
- Knowingly continuing to operate broadcast facilities after the FCC has terminated or rescinded authority, without a stay, supports a finding of “willful” and “repeated” violations under the Communications Act.
- Reliance on counsel and asserted litigation strategy do not excuse continued unauthorized operation in the face of an unstayed FCC termination order.
- Prior compliance history and claimed financial hardship may be considered in the agency’s forfeiture calculus but do not, in themselves, defeat enforcement of a final forfeiture order in court.

## Conclusion

The district court enforced the FCC’s $140,000 forfeiture against Peninsula because Peninsula continued operating seven translator stations after the FCC revoked authorization and Peninsula failed to obtain a stay, and the asserted equitable and practical defenses did not prevent enforcement of the final forfeiture order.


United States v. Peninsula Communications, Inc., 335 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (D. Alaska 2004)