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.

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



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554


                                            )                                
                                                                             
     In the Matter of                       )                                
                                                File No.: EB-07-SE-132       
     Leetek America, Inc., a subsidiary     )                                
     of                                         NAL/Acct. No.: 200832100072  
                                            )                                
     Lee Technology Korea, Co., Ltd.            FRN: 0017761271              
                                            )                                
                                                                             
                                            )                                


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted: November 2, 2012 Released: November 2, 2012

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we have before us a Petition for
       Reconsideration filed by Leetek America, Inc. (Leetek) in response to
       a Forfeiture Order issued by the Spectrum Enforcement Division
       (Division) of the Enforcement Bureau. The Forfeiture Order held Leetek
       liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 for willful and
       repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
       1934, as amended (Act), and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's rules
       (Rules), based on Leetek's marketing of an unauthorized pager
       transmitter system. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Leetek's
       Petition for Reconsideration.

   II. background

    2. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall
       manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
       electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
       with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Section
       2.803(a) of the Rules prohibits the sale or lease, offer for sale or
       lease (including advertising for sale or lease), distribution for the
       purpose of selling or leasing (or offering for sale or lease),
       importation, or shipment, of radio frequency devices, such as pager
       transmitter systems unless, in the case of a device subject to
       certification, the device has first been properly authorized,
       identified, and labeled in accordance with the Rules.

    3. In April 2007, the Division received a complaint alleging that a pager
       transmitter system marketed by Leetek in the United States was causing
       interference to licensed operators. On November 5, 2007, Division
       staff observed that Leetek was advertising for sale on its website
       pager transmitter systems, including models LTK-1400S and LTK-1700CT,
       without Commission authorization. The Division subsequently issued a
       letter of inquiry to Leetek, directing Leetek to submit a sworn
       response to a series of questions relating to its marketing of pager
       transmitter systems in the United States. In its LOI Response, Leetek
       admitted that it imported three units of the LTK-1700CT pager
       transmitter system on September 22, 2007 and that the Commission
       authorization for the device was not issued until January 3, 2008.
       Leetek asserted, however, that it imported the three units of the
       LTK-1700CT for "display in office and test market[ing]" purposes only.
       Leetek also stated that LTK, its parent company, "never produced" the
       LTK-1400S pager transmitter system.

    4. On August 25, 2008, the Division released a Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture to Leetek in the amount of $14,000. In the
       NAL, the Division found that Leetek apparently violated Section 302(b)
       of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing two models
       of pager transmitter systems, the LTK-1700CT and the LTK-1400S,
       without prior Commission authorization. Leetek responded to the NAL on
       September 2, 2008. In its NAL Response, Leetek repeated the argument,
       initially made in its LOI Response, that it imported three units of
       the LTK-1700CT solely for the purpose of design review and performance
       testing. Leetek also clarified its LOI Response with respect to the
       LTK-1400S pager transmitter system. Specifically, Leetek asserted that
       it never produced or marketed a pager transmitter system denominated
       "LTK-1400S," and that its third party website provider mistyped
       "LTK-1400S" as the model number for Leetek's authorized LTK-1400A
       pager transmitter system.

    5. On September 25, 2012, the Division released the Forfeiture Order,
       imposing a forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 for Leetek's marketing
       of the LTK-1700CT pager transmitter system without Commission
       authority. Based on additional information provided by Leetek in its
       NAL Response, the Division concluded that the device mistakenly
       marketed on Leetek's website under model number "LTK-1400S" was
       properly authorized and declined to impose a forfeiture as to that
       model. On September 27, 2012, Leetek filed a Petition for
       Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order. In its Petition for
       Reconsideration, Leetek repeats arguments previously raised with
       respect to its marketing of the LTK-1700CT pager transmitter system.
       Leetek also argues for the first time that the LTK-1700CT was
       incorrectly listed on the company's website by its third party website
       provider, and that Leetek and its parent company, LTK, have a history
       of compliance with the Rules that warrants reconsideration of the
       forfeiture.

   III. Discussion

    6. Under Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Rules, a petition for reconsideration
       that relies on facts or arguments not previously presented to the
       designated authority may be granted only if (1) the facts or arguments
       relate to events that occurred or circumstances that had changed since
       the last opportunity to present such matters; or (2) the facts or
       arguments were unknown to the petitioner, and could not have been
       known by the petitioner with the exercise of ordinary diligence, until
       after the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.
       Section 1.106(c)(2) of the Rules also permits grant of a petition for
       reconsideration that raises new facts or arguments if the designated
       authority determines that consideration of the new information is
       required in the public interest.

    7. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Leetek argues for the first time
       that the forfeiture should be reconsidered because the LTK-1700CT was
       mistakenly listed on its website prior to authorization as a result of
       a misunderstanding with its third party website provider. However,
       Leetek fails to demonstrate, as required by Section 1.106(c)(1) of the
       Rules, that this new argument relates to changed circumstances or
       previously unknown facts. Indeed, in its NAL Response, Leetek made
       nearly identical claims about the other model at issue, but failed to
       mention the alleged communication mistake regarding model LTK-1700CT.
       As such, the new argument is fatally untimely. Even if Leetek had made
       this argument at an earlier stage in the proceeding, we disagree that
       such an error would warrant either a reduction or cancellation of the
       forfeiture. In contrast to the mistyping of "LTK-1400S" for the
       authorized model LTK-1400A, in this instance it is undisputed that
       Leetek advertised the uncertified LTK-1700CT on its website in
       violation of Section 2.803(a) of the Rules. It is well established
       Commission precedent that violators are held responsible and
       accountable for their agents' acts or omissions.

    8. Leetek also seeks reconsideration of the forfeiture based on its claim
       that both Leetek and LTK have a history of compliance with the Rules.
       In this regard, we note that Leetek's violation of the Rules commenced
       shortly after its formation as the United States subsidiary of LTK and
       its entry into the U.S. marketplace. We therefore find that Leetek
       does not have a history of compliance and decline to reduce the
       forfeiture on this basis.

    9. Leetek's final argument, that it imported three units of the
       LTK-1700CT solely for "design and function review," is merely
       reiterative of an argument that it previously raised and that the
       Division fully considered and properly rejected in the Forfeiture
       Order. We therefore uphold the Division's finding that Leetek
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and
       Section 2.803(a) of the Rules and decline to further reduce the
       forfeiture amount.

   IV. ORDERING Clauses

   10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of
   the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and
   1.106 of the Commission's rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
   Leetek America, Inc. is hereby DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS
   AFFIRMED.

   11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80
   of the Commission's rules, Leetek America, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY
   FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand hundred dollars ($7,000) for
   willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act
   of 1934, as amended, and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's rules. This
   matter has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement
   of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of
   1934, as amended.

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
   shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt
   requested to Sungsoo Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Leetek America, Inc.,
   530 Highland Station Drive, Suite 2004, Suwanee, GA 30024.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Leetek America, Inc. (Sept. 27,
   2012) (on file in EB-07-SE-132) (Petition for Reconsideration).

   Leetek America, Inc. is the United States subsidiary of Lee Technology
   Korea, Co. Ltd. (LTK), which manufactures pager transmitter systems for
   sale in the United States.

   See Leetek America, Inc., File No. EB-07-SE-132, Order of Forfeiture, DA
   12-1531, 2012 WL 4458698 (Enf. Bur. Sept. 25, 2012) (Forfeiture Order).

   47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b).

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a).

   A pager transmitter system is a system licensed under Part 90 of the Rules
   for low power, secondary use, including paging, in the frequency range
   450-470 MHz. See id. S:S: 90.35, 90.261, 90.267.

   47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b).

   A radio frequency device is "any device which in its operation is capable
   of emitting radiofrequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other
   means." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.801.

   See id. S: 2.803(a). Pager transmitter systems are intentional radiators
   that must be certified by the Commission prior to marketing. See id. S:
   15.201(b). An intentional radiator is a "device that intentionally
   generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." Id.
   S: 15.3(o).

   We note that the pager transmitter system that formed the basis of the
   complaint had been taken out of service by March 31, 2007. Thus, any
   violation of the Rules occurred outside the applicable statute of
   limitations.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Sungsoo Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Leetek
   America, Inc. (Jan. 25, 2008) (on file in EB-07-SE-132) (LOI).

   See See Letter from Sungsoo Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Leetek America,
   Inc., to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 30, 2008) (on file in EB-07-SE-132) (LOI
   Response)  at 2-3.

   Id. at 2.

   Id. at 3.

   See Leetek America, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23
   FCC Rcd 12737 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (NAL).

   See id. at 12739-40, para. 8.

   See Letter from Sungsoo Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Leetek America,
   Inc., to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau (Sept. 2, 2008) (on file in EB-07-SE-132) (NAL
   Response). As part of its NAL Response, Leetek provided a copy of its 2007
   tax return purportedly to demonstrate that at the time of its submission,
   Leetek as an entity was not "fully organized." See id. at 2.

   See id.

   See NAL Response at 2.

   See Forfeiture Order, 2012 WL 4458698.

   See id. at *2.

   See Petition for Reconsideration at 2-3.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.106(c)(1).

   Id. S: 1.106(c)(2).

   See Petition for Reconsideration at 2.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.106(c)(1).

   In this regard, we note that by advertising the LTK-1700CT for sale on its
   website, Leetek could no longer qualify for either of the potentially
   applicable import conditions in Section 2.1204 (a) of the Rules. See 47
   C.F.R. S: 2.1204(a).

   See, e.g., Eure Family Ltd. P'ship, 17 FCC Rcd 21861 (2002) (finding that
   it is the antenna structure owner's primary responsibility to comply with
   tower lighting requirements, and denying the claim that the forfeiture
   should be cancelled because its lessee/contractor did not monitor, or
   notify it regarding, outages).

   See Petition for Reconsideration at 2-3.

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12738, paras. 3-4.

   See Petition for Reconsideration at 2.

   See Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and
   Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, Report and Order,
   26 FCC Rcd 1594, 1606, para. 27 (2011)  (delegating to the relevant
   bureaus or offices the authority to dismiss or deny petitions for
   reconsideration of staff level decisions that are procedurally defective
   or that merely repeat arguments that have been previously considered and
   rejected). See also, e.g., EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18257, 18257, para. 2 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (in denying a
   petition for reconsideration of related forfeiture orders, the Bureau
   emphasized that "[a] petition [for reconsideration] that simply reiterates
   arguments previously considered and rejected will be denied.") (citing
   WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686, para. 2 (1964),
   aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965)).
   In the Forfeiture Order, the Division correctly concluded that Leetek's
   marketing of the uncertified LTK-1700CT does not fall within any of the
   exceptions set forth in Section 2.803(c) or (d) of the Rules. See
   Forfeiture Order, 2012 WL 4458698, at *2, para. 6; see also 47 C.F.R. S:
   2.803(c), (d).

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
   deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
   to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
   Section 312 clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections
   312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982) (Conf. Rep.), and the
   Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context, see
   So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
   4387-88, para. 5 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern
   California).

   Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
   pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, defines "repeated" as "the
   commission or omission of [any] act more than once or, if such commission
   or omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2).
   See also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5.

   47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a).

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 154(i), 405; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.106.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a).

   47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).

   (Continued from previous page . . . )

   (continued . . . )

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1768

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1768