24
Mar
By Eric Schweibenz
On March 22, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 11 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondent Yongkang Boyu Auto Motor Company’s (“Yongkang Boyu”) motion to terminate the investigation based on a consent order.

According to the Order, Yongkang Boyu’s motion sought to enter into a consent order so that it could be terminated from the investigation.  Complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Remy”) and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion because Yongkang Boyu’s Proposed Consent Order and Consent Order Stipulation were limited to a single product - the N8206-5 alternator.

In the Order, ALJ Rogers agreed with Remy and OUII, determining that limitation of the Proposed Consent Order and the Consent Order Stipulation to a single product was improper.  The ALJ noted that because of this limitation, the Proposed Consent Order provided a remedy narrower than the scope of the investigation.  As such, the ALJ determined that the Proposed Consent Order would not afford Remy all of the relief to which it would otherwise be entitled and was therefore inadequate.  ALJ Rogers also identified errors in Yongkang Boyu’s Consent Order Stipulation.  Specifically, these errors included a failure to include language required by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(A)(4), an addition of qualifying language to statements required by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(B)(2), and an inclusion of statements that went beyond the language permitted by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(C).  Accordingly, ALJ Rogers denied Yongkang Boyu’s motion to terminate, noting that it would be permitted to re-file its motion to terminate, if it were based on a consent order consistent with the Order and the Commission Rules.
Share