Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21207

1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR § 207.2(f)).

2 Chairman Peter S. Watson not participating.

3 Commissioner Carol T. Crawford finds that

there is a reasonable indication that an industry in

the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from China of certain brake drums that are

alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV.

4 Chairman Peter S. Watson not participating.

5 Certain brake drums and certain brake rotors are

made of gray cast iron, may be finished,

semifinished, or unfinished, and range in diameter

from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and

in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41

kilograms). The subject products are for certain

motor vehicles (namely, automobiles, all-terrain

vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under ‘‘one

ton and a half,’’ and light trucks designated as ‘‘one

ton and a half’’), and do not contain in the casting

a logo of an original equipment manufacturer that

produces vehicles sold in the United States. Brake

drums and brake rotors covered in these

investigations are not certified by OEM producers

of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also

includes composite brake drums and rotors that are

made of gray cast iron which contain a steel plate,

but otherwise meet the above criteria.

document containing the BPI was not

viewed by anyone not on the APO.

D. Investigations Involving the ‘‘24-hour

Rule’’

During 1995, the Commission

completed five investigations of

apparent violations of the 24-hour rule,

set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 207.3. All of

these apparent violations of the

Commission’s rules involved changes to

a document other than bracketing and

deletion of BPI. The rule specifically

states that changes other than bracketing

and deletion of BPI are not permitted.

Practitioners should be aware that there

is no express provision in the

Commission rules that allows a party to

make corrections, other than bracketing

corrections, to a submission. If a party

wishes to make changes to a document

other than bracketing, such as

typographical changes or other

corrections, it must ask for an extension

of time to file an amended document

pursuant to rule 201.14(b)(2).

Case 1: Counsel filed a letter with the

Commission enclosing replacement

pages for the confidential version of

their submission and noting numerous

typographical errors in their

submission. Counsel added the changes

to the public version of their submission

during the 24-hour period allowed to

correct bracketing. Only one of the

changes involved bracketing or deletion

of business proprietary information.

Counsel did not request leave of the

Commission to make the non-bracketing

changes. The Commission determined

that the 24-hour rule had been violated.

Counsel was not sanctioned, but instead

all of the signatories on the document

were issued warning letters. The

Commission considered the fact that

counsel notified the Commission of the

changes in their cover letter and

replacement page; the changes were

relatively minor; and the attorneys

involved had no previous record of

violations of the 24-hour rule.

Case 2: Counsel filed a public version

of a document which contained

numerous changes to the wording in an

exhibit from the confidential version

filed the previous day. Counsel

explained that the reason for the change

was that a prior electronic draft of the

document was inadvertently used to

prepare the public version. The

Commission determined not to sanction

counsel, but instead issued warning

letters to lead counsel and the person

who transmitted the corrected pages. In

deciding to issue a warning instead of

a sanction, the Commission considered

the fact that the changes were relatively

minor, technical in nature and

seemingly inadvertent.

Case 3: Counsel for a party in an

investigation filed a public version of

the brief during the 24-hour period. Due

to the number of bracketing changes,

counsel refiled an entire confidential

brief rather than replacement pages. In

addition to changing brackets, counsel

included a table of contents, which was

not filed with the original confidential

brief. Counsel’s letter of transmittal

made no mention of the change, nor did

counsel seek permission to file the table

of contents. The Commission found that

the 24-hour rule had been violated. The

Commission did not sanction counsel,

but instead issued a warning letter. The

Commission considered the fact that the

addition of a table of contents to

counsel’s submission was only a minor

change, which was technical in nature

and seemingly inadvertent, and neither

added new information nor altered the

substance of the information provided.

Counsel was reminded, however, that

the 24-hour rule cannot be used to cure

defects in original filings.

Case 4: Counsel for a party to the

investigation filed a public version of a

brief during the 24-hour period which

contained additional words. Counsel

also filed replacement pages for the

confidential version of the document

which contained the same changes.

While counsel did point out the change

in its cover letter, counsel did not seek

leave of the Commission to make the

change. The Commission determined

that counsel had violated the 24-hour

rule. The Commission issued a warning

letter to the attorney who signed the

cover letter and who admitted

responsibility for the preparation of the

letter and changes to the document. In

determining not to sanction the

individual, the Commission considered

the fact that the change was only a

minor technical correction which did

not add any new information or alter the

substance of the information provided.

Additionally, the Commission

considered the fact that counsel, in its

letter, notified the Commission of the

change and its location, and therefore it

did not appear that counsel was

attempting to circumvent rule 207.3(c).

Case 5: Counsel for a party in the

investigation filed an errata sheet in

response to a Commission ruling

regarding BPI, attempting to delete a

word and replace it with a phrase. The

submission was rejected for filing by the

Secretary and was stricken from the

record. The Commission determined

that the 24-hour rule was violated but

that no further action was necessary.

Issued: May 1, 1996.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11520 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation No. 731–TA–744

(Preliminary)]

Certain Brake Drums and Rotors From

China

Determinations

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the

Commission determines,2 pursuant to

section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is threatened with

material injury by reason of imports

from China of certain brake drums that

are alleged to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV).3

The Commission also determines,4

pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that

there is a reasonable indication that an

industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports

from China of certain brake rotors that

are alleged to be sold in the United

States at LTFV. Both certain brake

drums and brake rotors are provided for

in subheading 8708.39.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States.5

Background

On March 7, 1996, a petition was filed

with the Commission and the

Department of Commerce by the

Coalition for the Preservation of

American Brake Drum and Rotor
21208 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

6 The members of the Coalition for the

Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor

Aftermarket Manufacturers consist of Brake Parts,

Inc., McHenry, IL; Kinetic Parts Manufacturing,

Inc., Harbor City, CA; Iroquois Tool Systems, Inc.,

North East, PA; and Wagner Brake Corp., St. Louis,

MO.

Aftermarket Manufacturers,6 alleging

that industries in the United States are

materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of LTFV

imports of certain brake drums and

rotors from China. Accordingly,

effective March 7, 1996, the

Commission instituted antidumping

investigation No. 731–TA–744

(Preliminary). Notice of the institution

of the Commission’s investigation and

of a public conference to be held in

connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing the notice in the

Federal Register of March 15, 1996 (61

FR 10788). The conference was held in

Washington, DC, on March 28, 1996,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determinations in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on April 22,

1996. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 2957

(April 1996), entitled ‘‘Certain Brake

Drums and Rotors from China:

Investigation No.731–TA–744

(Preliminary).’’

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 1, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11521 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Inv. No. 337–TA–374]

Certain Electrical Connectors and

Products Containing Same; Notice of

Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order

and Cease and Desist Order and

Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has issued a limited

exclusion order and a cease and desist

order to domestic respondent Foxconn

International, Inc. (‘‘Foxconn’’) in the

above-captioned investigation and

terminated the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay

H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202–

205–3116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

investigation was initiated by the

Commission on May 5, 1995, based on

a complaint, as supplemented, and a

motion for temporary relief filed by

AMP Incorporated and The Whitaker

Corporation (collectively

‘‘complainants’’). The following firms

were named as respondents: Berg

Electronics, Inc (‘‘Berg’’); Hon Hai

Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hon

Hai’’); Foxconn International

(‘‘Foxconn’’); and Tekcon Electronics

Corp (‘‘Tekcon’’). The complaint alleged

that respondents have violated 19 U.S.C.

§ 1337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘section

337’’) by importing and selling certain

electrical connectors that infringe

claims 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23 of

complainants’ U.S. Letters Patent

5,383,792 (the ‘‘‘792 patent’’).

On February 9, 1996 the presiding

administrative law judge (ALJ) issued

his initial determination (ID)

terminating the investigation under

Commission rule 210.17 as to the sole

remaining respondent, Hon Hai

Precision, Ltd. (‘‘Hon Hai’’), based on a

violation of section 337 (in light of Hon

Hai’s failure to respond to a motion for

summary determination). Specifically,

the ALJ made the adverse determination

that Hon Hai is in violation of section

337, finding that (1) Hon Hai

manufactures electrical connectors

which infringe claims 17, 18, 20, 21,

and 23 of the patent in issue; (2) Hon

Hai imports into the United States, sells

for importation, or sells within the

United States after importation such

connectors; and (3) a domestic industry

exists with respect to the articles

protected by the patent in issue. In that

ID, the ALJ also found that, pursuant to

Commission rule 210.16(c), since

Foxconn was found to be in default,

Foxconn is presumed to violate section

337 by importing into the United States,

selling for importation, or selling within

the United States after importation

certain electrical connectors that

infringe claims 17, 18, 20, 21 or 23 of

the patent in issue. On February 9, 1996,

the ALJ also issued a recommended

determination addressing the

appropriate form of remedy and the

appropriate bond.

On March 13, 1996, the Commission

issued notice of its determination not to

review the ALJ’s final ID, thereby

finding a violation of section 337, and

requested written submissions on the

issues of remedy, the public interest,

and bonding. 61 Fed. Reg. 11221 (March

19, 1996). Submissions were received

from complainants and the Commission

investigative attorney. Respondents Hon

Hai and Foxconn did not file

submissions.

Having reviewed the record in this

investigation, including the written

submissions of the parties, the

Commission made its determinations on

the issues of remedy, the public interest,

and bonding. The Commission

determined that the appropriate form of

relief is a limited exclusion order

prohibiting the unlicensed importation

of infringing electrical connectors and

motherboards containing such electrical

connectors manufactured and/or

imported by Hon Hai or Foxconn. In

addition, the Commission issued a cease

and desist order directed to domestic

respondent Foxconn requiring that firm

to cease and desist from the following

activities in the United States:

importing, selling, marketing,

distributing, offering for sale, or

otherwise transferring (except for

exportation) in the United States

infringing imported electrical

connectors and motherboards

containing such electrical connectors.

The Commission also determined that

the public interest factors enumerated in

19 U.S.C. 1337 (d) and (f) do not

preclude the issuance of the limited

exclusion order and cease and desist

order, and that the bond during the

Presidential review period shall be in

the amount of twenty (20) percent of the

entered value of the imported electrical

connectors and $0.20 per imported

electrical connector on motherboards

containing such connectors. Finally,

because the Commission has terminated

this investigation, the Commission

determined to deny as moot counsel for

complainants’ motion for withdrawal of

appearance in this investigation.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),

and section 210.50 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR

210.50).

Copies of the Commission’s remedial

orders, the Commission opinion in

support thereof, and all other

nonconfidential documents filed in

connection with this investigation are or

will be available for inspection during

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.