On December 6, 2013, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 15 and Order No. 17 in Certain Tires and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-894).

According to Order No. 15, Complainants Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.; Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc.; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc.; and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. (collectively, “Toyo”) filed a corrected motion to terminate  the investigation as to Respondent Weifang Shunfuchang Rubber & Plastic Co., Ltd. (“Weifang”) based on a consent order stipulation.  ALJ Bullock observed that while the motion included the required statement under Commission Rule 210.21(c) that “there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between Toyo and SoCal Wheels concerning the subject matter of this investigation,” the statement erroneously referred to Respondent “SoCal Wheels” instead of Weifang.  Accordingly, the motion was denied.

According to Order No. 17, Toyo filed a motion seeking a determination that Respondents WestKY Customs, LLC; Tire & Wheel Master, Inc.; Vittore Wheel & Tire; and RTM Wheel & Tire (collectively, “Non-Responding Respondents”) are in default based on their failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation.  ALJ Bullock thereafter issued Order No. 10 in which the Non-Responding Respondents were ordered to show cause why they should not be found in default for failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation.  Having received no responses to Order No. 10, ALJ Bullock made an Initial Determination that the Non-Responding Respondents are in default.