Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Leetek America

Download Options

Released: November 2, 2012

Federal Communications Commission


DA 12-1768

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
Reconsideration1 filed by Leetek America, Inc. (Leetek)2 in response to a Forfeiture Order3 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),4 and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission’s rules
(Rules),5 based on Leetek’s marketing of an unauthorized pager transmitter system.6 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.”7 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


1 Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Leetek America, Inc. (Sept. 27, 2012) (on file in EB-07-SE-132) (Petition for
Reconsideration).
2 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.
3 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).
4 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
5 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a).
6 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. §§ 90.35, 90.261, 90.267.
7 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).

Federal Communications Commission


DA 12-1768

selling or leasing (or offering for sale or lease), importation, or shipment, of radio frequency devices,8
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.9
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.10 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.11 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, 2008.12 Leetek asserted, however, that it imported the three units of the LTK-1700CT for “display in
office and test market[ing]” purposes only.13 Leetek also stated that LTK, its parent company, “never
produced” the LTK-1400S pager transmitter system.14
4.
On August 25, 2008, the Division released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to
Leetek in the amount of $14,000.15 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.16 Leetek
responded to the NAL on September 2, 2008.17 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.18 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


8 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. § 2.801.
9 See id. § 2.803(a). Pager transmitter systems are intentional radiators that must be certified by the Commission
prior to marketing. See id. § 15.201(b). An intentional radiator is a “device that intentionally generates and emits
radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.” Id. § 15.3(o).
10 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.
11 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).
12 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.
13 Id. at 2.
14 Id. at 3.
15 See Leetek America, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 12737 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (NAL).
16 See id. at 12739–40, para. 8.
17 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.
18 See id.
2

Federal Communications Commission


DA 12-1768

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.19
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.20 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.21 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.22

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.23 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.24
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.25 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.26 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.27 It is well established


19 See NAL Response at 2.
20 See Forfeiture Order, 2012 WL 4458698.
21 See id. at *2.
22 See Petition for Reconsideration at 2–3.
23 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c)(1).
24 Id. § 1.106(c)(2).
25 See Petition for Reconsideration at 2.
26 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c)(1).
27 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. §
2.1204(a).
3

Federal Communications Commission


DA 12-1768

Commission precedent that violators are held responsible and accountable for their agents’ acts or
omissions.28
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.29 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.30 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,”31 is merely reiterative of an argument that it previously raised and that the Division
fully considered and properly rejected in the Forfeiture Order.32 We therefore uphold the Division’s
finding that Leetek willfully33 and repeatedly34 violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of
the Rules35 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,36 the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Leetek America, Inc. is hereby

DENIED

and the
Forfeiture Order

IS AFFIRMED

.


28 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).
29 See Petition for Reconsideration at 2–3.
30 See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12738, paras. 3–4.
31 See Petition for Reconsideration at 2.
32 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. § 2.803(c), (d).
33 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. § 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).
34 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. § 312(f)(2). See also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388,
para. 5.
35 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a).
36 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405; 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.106.
4

Federal Communications Commission


DA 12-1768

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,37 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.38 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.39
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


37 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
38 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a).
39 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
5

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.