Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

International Trade Commission

CFR Citation: 19 CFR Parts 201 and 210

NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES

ACTION: Practice and procedure:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Rules of General Application and Adjudication and Enforcement

DATES: To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received by 5:15 p.m. within 60 days after publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The United States International Trade Commission (``Commission'') proposes to amend its
[[Page 72281]]
Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning rules of general application, adjudication, and enforcement. The amendments are necessary to make certain technical corrections, to clarify certain provisions, to harmonize different parts of the Commission's rules, and to address concerns that have arisen in Commission practice. The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to facilitate compliance with the Commission's Rules and improve the administration of agency proceedings.

SUMMARY: General application, adjudication, and enforcement rules; technical corrections, clarification, etc.,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

The preamble below is designed to assist readers in understanding these proposed amendments to the Commission Rules. This preamble provides background information, a regulatory analysis of the proposed amendments, an explanation of the proposed amendments to part 201, a sectionbysection explanation of the proposed amendments to part 210, and a description of the proposed amendments to the rules. The Commission encourages members of the public to comment, in addition to any other comments they wish to make on the proposed amendments, on whether the proposed amendments are in language that is sufficiently clear for users to understand.

If the Commission decides to proceed with this rulemaking after reviewing the comments filed in response to this notice, the proposed rule revisions will be promulgated in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') (5 U.S.C. 553), and will be codified in 19 CFR parts 201 and 210.

Background

Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking seeks to update certain outdated provisions and improve other provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission proposes amendments to its rules covering investigations under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) (``section 337'') in order to increase the efficiency of its section 337 investigations. This rulemaking effort began in 2003 when the ITC Trial Lawyers Association (``ITCTLA'') submitted a report to the Commission which suggested several rule changes that it believed would make the Commission rules more effective. In the course of considering the ITCTLA proposals, the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') also suggested various rule changes. The Commission invites the public to comment on all of these proposed rules amendments. In any comments, please consider addressing whether the proposed amendments are in language that is clear and easy to understand. In addition, in any comments, please consider addressing how the proposed rules amendments could be improved, and/or offering specific constructive alternatives where appropriate.

Consistent with its ordinary practice, the Commission is issuing these proposed amendments in accordance with the rulemaking procedure in section 553 of the APA. This procedure entails the following steps: (1) Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) solicitation of public comments on the proposed amendments; (3) Commission review of public comments on the proposed amendments; and (4) publication of final amendments at least thirty days prior to their effective date. Regulatory Analysis of Proposed Amendments to the Commission's Rules

The Commission has determined that the final rules do not meet the criteria described in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and thus do not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of the Executive Order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is inapplicable to this rulemaking because it is not one for which a notice of final rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other statute. Although the Commission has chosen to publish a notice of final rulemaking, these proposed regulations are ``agency rules of procedure and practice,'' and thus are exempt from the notice requirement imposed by 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

These proposed rules do not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 4, 1999).

No actions are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) because the final rules will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The final rules are not major rules as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Moreover, they are exempt from the reporting requirements of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104121) because
[[Page 72282]]
they concern rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties.

The amendments are not subject to section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), since they do not contain any new information collection requirements.

Explanation of the Proposed Amendments to 19 CFR Part 201

The Commission proposes to amend part 201, Rules of General Application, in the manner described below.
Subpart BInitiation and Conduct of Investigations

Section 201.16

Section 201.16 provides generally for service of process and other documents, and includes paragraph (d) which provides for additional time after service by mail. Recently amended sections 210.6 and 210.7 allow one additional day for the parties to respond to Commission documents that are served by overnight delivery. See 72 FR 13689, March 23, 2007. The Commission proposes adding new paragraph (e) of section 201.16 to also provide one additional day for parties to respond to documents served on them by overnight delivery by other parties, and to conform section 201.16 to sections 210.6 and 210.7. The Commission also proposes redesignating existing paragraph (e) as new paragraph (f) to allow for this change.
SectionbySection Explanation of the Proposed Amendments to 19 CFR Part 210

The Commission proposes to amend part 210, Adjudication and Enforcement, in the manner described below.
Subpart ARules of General Applicability

Section 210.3

This section provides definitions of words and phrases used in part 210. The phrase ``U.S. Customs Service'' is used throughout part 210. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the U.S. Customs Service merged into the Department of Homeland Security. The official name of this entity is now ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection.'' 72 FR 20131, April 23, 2007. Thus, the Commission proposes to amend section 210.3 to reflect the official name.

Section 210.4

Paragraph (f)(1)(i) of section 210.4 sets forth the physical specifications for the filing of documents addressed to the Commission and was adopted when filings were frequently typeset by commercial printers. The Commission proposes revising section 210.4 to remove reference to any physical specifications related to typographic printing processes.
Section 210.7

Paragraph (a), Manner of Service

Recently, sections 210.6 and 210.7 were amended to include provisions relating to the service of certain Commission documents by overnight delivery. See 72 FR 1368990, March 23, 2007. Although these amendments were intended, inter alia, to streamline the service process and promote uniformity of service, the amendments regarding service by overnight delivery have created the prospect of differing response dates for the private parties and OUII. Thus, an unintended consequence of these amendments is that tracking of multiple service dates by the Commission will be necessary for various documents and/or numerous additional requests for extensions of time will be made to conform response dates for all parties.

Under existing practice, the Commission normally grants requests for extensions of time which are made to ensure that the due date for responses is uniform as to all parties. Therefore, the Commission proposes to add a new paragraph (a)(3) to section 210.7 so that when the Commission effects service upon the private parties by overnight delivery, service upon OUII shall also be deemed to have been effected by overnight delivery. This amendment to paragraph (a) of section 210.7 should eliminate multiple response dates for the same document by providing a uniform response date for all parties, thereby obviating the need for recurrent requests to conform response dates and minimizing administrative burdens on Commission personnel. Thus, the amendment is consistent with the aims of the recent overnight service provisions relating to Commission documents. See 72 FR 13689, March 23, 2007.

New Paragraph (b), Designations for Service of Process

Paragraph (a)(1) of section 210.7 generally provides service rules and requires that documents shall be served on all other parties. At present, any entity that files an entry of appearance on behalf of a named party is placed on the service list and is served with all documents. Service of documents containing confidential business information also requires signing onto the protective order for that investigation. This leads to the situation where multiple offices of the same law firm and multiple law firms are being served with documents on behalf of a single party. Redundancy in service is a substantial financial burden on both the private parties and the Commission in terms of copying and delivery costs.

The Commission proposes that a lead attorney be designated to accept process for all other attorneys representing the same party in a section 337 investigation. Under this proposal, no limit would be placed on the number of attorneys of record for a party, but each named party would have to designate one attorneyforservice who agrees to accept all service on behalf of that party. The Commission proposes adding new paragraph (b) to provide designation of a single attorney, selected lead attorney, or representative for service of process. The Commission also proposes redesignating existing paragraph (b) of section 210.7 (which concerns the publication of notices) as paragraph (c) to accommodate the addition of new paragraph (b).
Subpart BCommencement of Preinstitution Proceedings and
Investigations

Sections 210.8 and 210.11

Sections 210.8 and 210.11 generally concern commencement of preinstitution proceedings and service of a complaint and notice of investigation. To make sections 210.8 and 210.11 easier to read and understand, the Commission proposes completely revising each of these sections by distinctly setting out their respective requirements for: (1) Complaints not seeking temporary relief, and (2) complaints seeking temporary relief. Specifically, paragraphs (a)(1) of proposed sections 210.8 and 210.11 relate to complaints not seeking temporary relief, and paragraphs (a)(2) of proposed sections 210.8 and 210.11 relate to complaints seeking temporary relief. Further detailed explanation of these revisions follows.

Section 210.8 requires that the complainant provide the Secretary with sufficient copies of the complaint, any supplement to the complaint, any motion for temporary relief, and all exhibits to any of these papers so that it may serve them on the proposed respondents should the Commission institute an investigation. Thereafter, section 210.11 requires the Secretary to serve a copy of the complaint, and notice of investigation (and any accompanying motion for temporary [[Page 72283]]
relief) upon each respondent and their respective embassies in Washington, DC. Sections 210.8 and 210.11 acknowledge that, for investigations involving temporary relief, section 210.54 requires the complainant to serve nonconfidential copies of the complaint and motion for relief and nonconfidential copies of all attached materials on all proposed respondents and the embassy in Washington, DC. Furthermore, section 210.54 requires that the complainant submit to the Commission actual proof of service on each respondent and embassy within ten days after the filing of the complaint.

Thus, sections 210.8 and 210.11 mandate duplicate service of the complaint and temporary relief motion together with all exhibits by the complainant and the Secretary in investigations involving temporary relief and needlessly increase the number of copies that must be supplied to the Secretary and served by the Secretary following the institution of an investigation. Duplicate service, especially of voluminous exhibits, imposes a serious financial burden on both the complainant and the Commission in terms of copying and mailing costs. During the 1988 rules revision, the Commission acknowledged that the rules required double service, but reasoned that service of the complaint by the Commission was necessary because the date of service by the Commission is the date used for computing the date for a response. See 53 FR 33046, August 29, 1988.

The proposed amendment to this rule provides that in investigations involving temporary relief, the complainant be required to submit only the required number of service copies of any unserved confidential material provided in connection with the complaint or motion for temporary relief and the requisite number of copies of the public complaint (without exhibits) for service by the Secretary. The proposed amendment provides that the Secretary is required, upon institution of an investigation involving temporary relief, to serve only the Notice of Investigation and a copy of the complaint (without exhibits) on each respondent and embassy. The amendment further provides that the service of these documents by the Secretary serves as the operative service for calculating a response date. In the rare event that complainant does not serve a proposed respondent with the exhibits, the respondents may take up the matter with the presiding ALJ under section 210.4, or obtain the public exhibits from the Secretary's office or through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (``EDIS'').

Accordingly, the Commission proposes language to revise sections 210.8 and 210.11 to provide that upon the institution of an investigation involving temporary relief, the Secretary will serve the Notice of Investigation and a copy of the complaint (without exhibits) on each respondent and embassy. In view of the proposed changes to Sec. 210.11(a)(1), the Commission also proposes to revise section 210.54 and section 210.56 to eliminate references to subsequent service of the motion for temporary relief by the Commission.

In reviewing the language of section 210.8 with a view toward proposing alternate language to eliminate doubleservice in temporary relief cases, it was noted that existing section 210.8 is itself rather confusing. Indeed, the Commission frequently receives inquiries from law firms representing prospective complainants that are confused about how many copies of the complaint and associated materials they are required to file to commence a section 337 proceeding. Thus, the Commission proposes revising section 210.8 to make it easier to determine how many copies are required when filing a permanent relief or a temporary relief complaint, and to make it possible for the Commission to eliminate unnecessary effort and expenses associated with the initial storage and subsequent reservice of materials required for complaints involving temporary relief requests. To achieve these ends, the Commission proposes breaking out the filing requirements in section 210.8 into separate paragraphs (paragraph (a)(1) for permanent relief and paragraph (a)(2) for temporary relief proceedings), and setting out numbered lists (Sec. Sec. 210.8(a)(1)(i)(iv) for permanent relief and Sec. Sec. 210.8(a)(2)(i)(vi) for temporary relief proceedings) specifying the required number of copies of each item to be filed with the Secretary for each type of proceeding. Supplements to such filings are also specifically referenced in the proposed section 210.8.

The Commission proposes similarly structured revisions to Sec. 210.11(a)(1), which concerns Commission service of complaints and notices of investigation. The Commission also proposes revising section 210.54 and Sec. 210.56(a) to reflect the aforementioned revisions to sections 210.8 and 210.11.

Section 210.10

Paragraph (a)(5)(i) of section 210.10 allows a complainant to withdraw the complaint ``as a matter of right'' prior to the Commission's vote on institution of the investigation simply by filing a written notice with the Commission. If the complaint is being withdrawn pursuant to a settlement agreement, however, the rule requires that a copy of the settlement agreement be filed with the written notice. The requirement to submit a settlement agreement is consistent with Sec. 210.21(b) regarding termination of an ongoing investigation based on a settlement agreement. However, prior to the institution of an investigation, the Commission may not have the knowledge necessary to assess the significance of the terms of any settlement agreement. Also, any review of a settlement agreement before institution contradicts the statement that a complainant may withdraw the complaint ``as a matter of right'' before institution. Thus, the Commission proposes revising paragraph (a)(5)(i) of section 210.10 to delete the requirement that any copies of the settlement agreement and/ or other documents be submitted when a complaint is withdrawn prior to institution.

Section 210.11

Section 210.11 requires the Secretary to serve a copy of the complaint, and notice of investigation (and any accompanying motion for temporary relief) upon each respondent and their respective embassies in Washington, DC. The Commission proposes amending section 210.11 by substantially revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to make them easier to read and understand as discussed above in relation to section 210.8 and 210.11.

Paragraph (a) of section 210.11 generally provides for service of the complaint and notice of investigation as discussed above with regard to the proposed changes to sections 210.8 and 210.11. The Commission proposes revising paragraph (a) to eliminate doubleservice in temporary relief cases and to reduce the number of copies required when serving the complaint and temporary relief motion as previously discussed in relation to sections 210.8 and 210.11. The Commission also proposes adding paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) to specifically provide for service of documents on ``upon the embassy in Washington, DC, of the country in which each proposed respondent is located as indicated in the Complaint.''

Paragraph (b) of section 210.11 allows a complainant, with leave of the ALJ, to attempt personal service of a complaint after the Secretary's efforts to serve the respondent by certified mail have failed. The Commission proposes that the rule
[[Page 72284]]
be amended to remove the reference to certified mail because the Commission now serves foreign addressees by overnight delivery. Subpart CPleadings

Section 210.12 and 210.13

Section 210.12 generally provides the requirements for a complaint, and section 210.13 generally provides for a response. The Commission proposes substituting the phrase ``U.S. patent'' where appropriate for the phrase ``U.S. letters patent'' throughout the 210 rules to reflect current usage. This change affects revised Sec. Sec. 210.12(a)(9), (a)(9)(i), (a)(9)(ii), (a)(9)(iii), (a)(9)(iv), (a)(9)(v), (a)(9)(vi), (a)(9)(vii) (two occurrences), and (a)(9)(viii); revised Sec. Sec. 210.12(c), (c)(1), and (c)(2); and Sec. Sec. 210.13(b), (b)(1) (three occurrences), and (b)(3).
Section 210.12

Paragraph (a)(1), Verification of Complaint

Paragraph (a)(1) of section 210.12 requires a complaint to be under oath and signed by the complainant or his authorized agent (verification of the complaint). To further clarify the meaning of this section, the Commission also proposes that this section be revised to include language that a complaint is to include a verification attesting to the matters in Sec. Sec. 210.4(c)(1)(3). Paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (h), Domestic Industry

Paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (h) of section 210.12 relate to the requirement that complainants include a showing of domestic industry for certain intellectual property rights. Since the last rules revision, section 337 was amended to add 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(E), which concerns vessel hull designs, to the statute. The Commission proposes revising Sec. 210.12(a)(6)(i) and Sec. 210.12(a)(6)(i)(C) to include the appropriate references to 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(E). The Commission also proposes adding new Sec. 210.12(h) concerning vessel hull designs to bring section 210.12 into compliance with the statutory change. The current final paragraph (h) of section 210.12 would then be redesignated as paragraph (i).

Paragraph (a)(9), Content of Complaint

Paragraph (a)(9) of section 210.12 relates to the content of a complaint based on infringement of a valid and enforceable U.S. patent. The Commission proposes substituting the phrase ``U.S. patent `` where appropriate for the phrase ``U.S. letters patent'' to reflect current usage. This change was discussed previously with respect to sections 210.12 and 210.13.
Paragraphs (a)(9)(iv), (a)(10), (c)(1), (d), (f), and (g); Copies of License Agreements

The Commission proposes adding new Sec. 210.12(a)(9)(iv) and Sec. Sec. 210.12(a)(10)(i) and (a)(10)(ii) to reduce the number of copies of license agreements that complainants must file, and proposes revising Sec. Sec. 210.12(c)(1), (d), (f), and (g) to eliminate the language of these paragraphs regarding submission of license agreements.

Section 210.12(c)(1) currently requires that a complainant submit the following ``additional material'' regarding licenses with a patent based section 337 complaint: Three copies of each license agreement related to each patent, or three copies of any applicable standard license agreement with a corresponding list of licensees operating under the agreement. Sections 210.12(d), (f), and (g) set forth the same requirement for complaints based upon federally registered trademarks, copyrights, and mask works, respectively. Newly proposed Sec. 210.12(h) concerning vessel hull designs does not call for three copies of license agreements.

Because licenses are currently identified in the rules as ``additional material to accompany'' the complaint, and only three copies of the licenses are required to be filed, licenses (which can be voluminous) are not normally filed as exhibits to the complaint. Rather, they are generally submitted as appendices to the complaint. Licenses are, therefore, not included in the service copies of the complaint that the Commission transmits to the respondents upon institution of an investigation. Also, since licenses are usually deemed to contain confidential business information (``CBI''), they are generally not available to the public via EDIS. Complainants have increasingly expressed concern during the preinstitution process about submitting copies of all or some of their license agreements with the complaint because of nondisclosure provisions in these agreements.

While the submission of all license agreements regarding asserted patents and federally registered trademarks, copyrights and mask works is required under the current Rules, such agreements do not normally bear upon the decision to institute an investigation. Indeed, the present requirement burdens the complainant and Office of the Secretary with the reproduction and storage of documents that are not needed by Commission staff at the outset of an investigation and that can later be obtained by the parties through routine discovery requests. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that paragraphs (c)(1), (d), (f), and (g) of section 210.12 be amended so that the submission of license agreements would be required only in those instances where (i) the complainant relies upon its status as a licensee for purposes of standing or (ii) the complainant relies upon the domestic activities of a licensee in support of its domestic industry contentions. Moreover, the Commission proposes that in these instances, the license be submitted as an exhibit to the complaint (which would ultimately be served upon the
respondents), rather than as an appendix item (which would remain in the Commission files and would not be served on respondents). In addition, under this proposal, all licensees of the asserted rights would also have to be identified in the complaint. Such
identification is currently required for patent licensees under Sec. 210.12(a)(9)(iii), but not for licensees of registered trademarks, copyrights, or mask works. The Commission proposes adding new paragraph (10) in Sec. 210.12(a) to clearly set forth the requirements regarding licenses for nonpatentbased complaints (i.e., complaints based on the infringement of a federally registered copyright, trademark, mask work, or vessel hull design). Thus, the Commission also proposes that existing paragraph (10) of Sec. 210.12(a) be redesignated as paragraph (11). Finally, as noted above, the Commission proposes that paragraphs (d), (f), and (g) of section 210.12 be revised to eliminate the language at the end of each subsection regarding the submission of licenses.

Paragraph (a)(9)(iv), Foreign Patent Applications

Existing paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of section 210.12 relates to the requirement that a complainant provide a list of each pending foreign patent application and each foreign patent application that has been denied. As currently written, the rule does not require the identification of any foreign patent application that has been abandoned or withdrawn. In current practice, however, OUII has consistently requested that complainants provide this information during OUII's preinstitution investigatory review. The proposed change to current Sec. 210.12(a)(9)(iv) contains language which conforms this section of the rules to current practice. The Commission also proposes redesignating paragraph (a)(9)(iv) as paragraph (a)(9)(v) of this section to allow for the addition of new paragraph (a)(9)(iv) relating to the submission of copies of license agreements in certain circumstances, as discussed above.
Paragraphs (a)(9)(vii) and (a)(9)(viii), Infringement/Domestic Industry Charts

Paragraphs (a)(9)(vii) and (a)(9)(viii) of section 210.12 require a complainant to supply infringement charts and domestic industry charts along with the complaint, respectively. As currently written, section 210.12 is ambiguous because it begins by requiring a showing [[Page 72285]]
of infringement by each respondent and then states that a complainant makes such a showing by providing a claim chart applying an exemplary patent claim to both a representative domestic product and an infringing product of each respondent so named. For clarity, the Commission proposes that there be a requirement for infringement claim charts and a separate requirement for a domestic industry claim chart. This proposal revises section 210.12 to require claim charts for both infringement and the domestic industry, and affects the following paragraphs of section 210.12: Paragraph (a)(9)(vii) is revised to delete the reference to a ``domestic article or process,'' new paragraph (a)(9)(ix) is added to specifically require domestic industry claim charts, and paragraphs (a)(9)(iv)(a)(9)(viii) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(9)(v)(viii) and (a)(9)(x), respectively, to accomodate new paragraphs (a)(9)(iv) and (a)(9)(ix).
Paragraph (c), Material to Accompany Each Patentbased Complaint

Paragraph (c) of section 210.12 relates to additional materials that must accompany each patentbased complaint. The Commission proposes revising paragraphs (c), (c)(1), and (c)(2) of section 210.12 by substituting the phrase ``U.S. patent `` for the phrase ``U.S. letters patent'' to reflect current usage as discussed above with regard to sections 210.12 and 210.13.
Paragraph (d), Material to Accompany Registered Trademarkbased Complaints

Paragraph (d) of section 210.12 relates to additional materials that must accompany each registered trademarkbased complaint. This paragraph currently requires a complaint to include one certified copy of the trademark's federal registration along with three additional copies. The Commission proposes revising this paragraph to add a requirement for one certified copy of the prosecution history for each involved U.S. registered trademark, plus three additional copies. Such information is currently required for patentbased complaints. See Sec. 210.12(c)(2). The Commission believes such information will often be useful in crafting an exclusion order of appropriate scope, particularly in cases where all the respondents have defaulted.

Section 210.12(d) also currently requires that a complainant submit the following ``additional material'' regarding licenses with a registered trademarkbased section 337 complaint: Three copies of each license agreement related to each trademark, or three copies of any applicable standard license agreement with a corresponding list of licensees operating under the agreement. The Commission proposes revising Sec. 210.12(d) to eliminate the language of this paragraph regarding submission of license agreements as discussed above with regard to paragraphs (a)(9)(iv), (a)(10), and (c)(1).
Paragraph (f), Material To Accompany CopyrightBased Complaints

Section 210.12(f) currently requires that a complainant submit the following ``additional material'' regarding licenses with a copyright based section 337 complaint: Three copies of each license agreement related to each copyright, or three copies of any applicable standard license agreement with a corresponding list of licensees operating under the agreement. The Commission proposes revising Sec. 210.12(f) to eliminate the language of this paragraph regarding submission of license agreements as discussed above with regard to paragraphs (a)(9)(iv), (a)(10), (c)(1), and (d).
Paragraph (g), Material To Accompany Mask WorkBased Complaints

Section 210.12(g) currently requires that a complainant submit the following ``additional material'' regarding licenses with a mask work based section 337 complaint: Three copies of each license agreement related to each mask work, or three copies of any applicable standard license agreement with a corresponding list of licensees operating under the agreement. The Commission proposes revising Sec. 210.12(g) to eliminate the language of this paragraph regarding submission of license agreements as discussed above with regard to paragraphs (a)(9)(iv), (a)(10), (c)(1), (d), and (f).
Paragraph (h), Material To Accompany Vessel Hull DesignBased Complaints

The Commission proposes adding a new provision, paragraph (h), under section 210.12 relating to additional material to accompany a registered vessel hull designbased complaint. The Commission proposes that a complainant that bases its complaint on a vessel hull design registered under 17 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. should be required to provide the same materials as does a complainant bringing an action under other copyright provisions (Sec. 210.12(f)) or under a federally registered mask work (Sec. 210.12(g)). Specifically, the proposal requires that a complainant provide one certified copy and three additional copies of the certificate of registration, issued by the Registrar of Copyrights under 17 U.S.C. 1314, and identify any licensees under the registered vessel hull design. To accommodate the insertion of proposed new paragraph (h), and the insertion of proposed new paragraph (i) discussed below, the Commission also proposes redesignating existing Sec. 210.12(h), which concerns the duty to supplement the complaint, as Sec. 210.12(j).

Paragraph (i), Initial Disclosures

The Commission proposes adding a new provision, paragraph (i) under section 210.12 which provides for the service upon counsel for respondent of each document submitted with the complaint within five (5) business days of service of a notice of appearance and agreement to be bound by the terms of the protective order. Under the current rule, much of the information required to accompany a complaint, such as prosecution histories and license agreements, is submitted as part of an appendix rather than as an exhibit. Consequently, respondents often need to seek copies of these documents through discovery. The addition of new paragraph (i) was proposed by the ITCTLA to expedite the production of these documents and to provide the respondents with a fuller understanding of the allegations in the complaint. Such early document production may be particularly beneficial in investigations in which the domestic industry is based on an allegation of domestic licensing activity. The proposed new rule protects the complainant's confidential information by requiring service only on counsel for respondents who have agreed to be bound by the terms of the protective order.
Subpart DMotions

Section 210.15

The Commission proposes to amend paragraph (a) of section 210.15 to eliminate reference to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. In current practice, the institution of an investigation and assignment of an administrative law judge occur simultaneously, and there is no Chief Administrative Law Judge. Similarly, the Commission also proposes revising paragraph (a) of section 210.20, section 210.58, and paragraph (b)(3) of section 210.75 to eliminate references to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. These revisions merely conform the rules to current practice.

Section 210.18

The Commission proposes that paragraph (a) of section 210.18 be revised to require that motions for summary determination be filed 60 days
[[Page 72286]]
prior to the start of any hearing provided for in Sec. 210.36(a)(1), instead of 30 days before the hearing as the rule currently provides. In its report to the Commission, the ITCTLA proposed such an amendment and noted that the filing of summary determination motions only 30 days before the hearing is burdensome on the administrative law judge and the parties who are attempting to prepare for trial at that time. The ITCTLA commented that such motions often appear to be used as a tactic at that late stage, because, in practice, it is difficult for the administrative law judges to resolve summary determination motions in 30 days, and, in any event, initial determinations granting such motions are subject to review by the Commission for another 3045 days. However, the ITCTLA also proposed that the administrative law judge be permitted to allow the filing of a summary determination motion out of time under ``exceptional circumstances.'' The Commission believes the ITCTLA's proposal to amend section 210.18 in these respects is well founded, and proposes to amend section 210.18 accordingly.

The Commission also proposes that paragraph (a) of section 210.18 be revised to provide that the 60 day period begin on the day prior to the scheduled hearing whether or not it is a weekend or holiday, and that if the 60th day is a weekend or holiday, the motion must be filed on the next business day. This proposal also includes that, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, a motion for summary determination may be filed out of time.

Section 210.20

The Commission proposes to amend paragraph (a) of section 210.20 to eliminate reference to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. This change is the same change previously discussed with respect to paragraph (a) of section 210.15. The Commission also proposes to amend paragraph (a) of section 210.20 to specify that if the administrative law judge is no longer employed by the Commission, the motion to declassify confidential documents under Sec. 210.20(a) shall be addressed to the Commission.

Section 210.21

Section 210.21 relates to the termination of an investigation in whole or in part by withdrawal of the complaint. The Commission proposes that the rule be amended in two ways.

First, as currently written, the rule states that a party may move before the administrative law judge ``for an order to terminate'' an investigation. However, under Sec. 210.42(c), the administrative law judge is required to grant such a motion by initial determination and deny such a motion by order. Therefore, the Commission proposes to delete the language ``for an order'' in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of section 210.21. The Commission also proposes removing the language ``An order of'', which appears throughout section 210.21 in paragraphs (b)(2), (c), (c)(2)(ii), (d), and (e), for the same reason.

Second, current Sec. 210.21(a)(1) allows the parties to keep a settlement agreement secret by having the complainant move to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint under Sec. 210.21(a)(1), in direct conflict with Sec. 210.21(b), which requires that motions to terminate investigations based on settlement agreements must include the settlement agreement. The current rule, Sec. 210.21(a)(1), states that ``any party may move at any time prior to the issuance of an initial determination on violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for an order to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint. * * *'' Thus the current rule allows for the parties to reach a settlement agreement and then keep the agreement secret by having the complainant move to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. As currently written, Sec. 210.21(a)(1) does not require the complainant to acknowledge or provide the settlement agreement to the Commission. The Commission has a public policy interest in reviewing settlement agreements that form the basis for termination of an investigation. The Commission's consideration of the public interest should not be dependent upon a party's choice to designate the termination as one based on withdrawal of the complaint or as one based on a settlement agreement. Thus, the Commission proposes amending paragraph (a)(1) of section 210.21 to make clear that once an investigation has been instituted, any settlement agreement with respect to an investigation must be provided to the Commission even if the complainant is willing to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. In other words, the Commission proposes to amend Sec. 210.21(a) to provide that a complainant requesting withdrawal of all or part of the complaint must affirmatively state that there are no agreements between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation, or if there are any such agreements, they must be identified and provided to the Commission. This requirement would alleviate the potential problem discussed above, and would also be consistent with Sec. 210.21(b)(1) requiring such language to terminate an investigation based on a settlement agreement, and proposed Sec. 210.21(c) requiring such language to terminate an investigation based on a consent order.

Section 210.22

Section 210.22 provides a mechanism for designating an investigation ``more complicated.'' This rule was necessary when section 337 provided that Commission investigations were to be completed in no more than one year (18 months in ``more complicated'' cases). In 1994, the Uruguay Round Agreement Amendments removed statutory deadlines for Commission investigations under section 337, and accordingly there is no longer a need for this provision. While the temporary relief phase is still subject to statutory deadlines, sections 210.51 and 210.60 set forth the procedure for designating the temporary relief phase ``more complicated.'' Current section 210.22 has no relevance to current practice, and the Commission proposes that this section be removed in its entirety. Deletion of this section does not affect any other sections.

Section 210.25

Paragraph (f) of section 210.25 generally relates to sanctions motions before an administrative law judge and allows an administrative law judge to defer adjudication of a sanctions motion until ``no later than 90 days after issuance of the [final] initial determination of violation of section 337 or termination of the investigation.'' However, depending upon whether the Commission undertakes review or requires additional time to consider the final initial determination, the 90day deadline for the administrative law judge's recommended determination may expire on or before the Commission's final initial determination is issued. Issuance of the recommended determination before the Commission issues its decision on the merits may be problematic because the Commission's violation decision may vitiate, or at least call into question, the underpinnings of the sanctions motion. The Commission proposes revising Sec. 210.25(f) to permit an administrative law judge to defer issuing an recommended determination on a sanctions motion until 30 days
[[Page 72287]]
after the issuance of the Commission's final determination. Subpart EDiscovery and Compulsory Process
Section 210.28
Paragraph (d), Service of Deposition Transcripts on the Commission Staff

Paragraph (d) of section 210.28 relates to the taking of depositions and states that the person transcribing the depositions ``shall forward one copy of a deposition transcript to each party present or represented at the taking of the deposition.'' The mandatory language of this rule does not comport with current practice at the Commission or in the U.S. district courts, where stenographers transcribe the deposition and make copies available (for purchase) to all parties to the investigation regardless of whether that party appeared at the deposition. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(2). Also, under Sec. 210.28(f) of the current rules, the Commission investigative attorney is the only attorney that ``must'' be served with a copy of the deposition, and the burden of such service is placed on the party taking the deposition, not directly on the stenographer. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(2) states that ``[u]pon payment of reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a copy of the transcript or other recording of the deposition to any party or to the deponent.''

Therefore, the Commission proposes that Sec. 210.28(d) be amended to conform with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Paragraph (g), Admissibility of Depositions

Paragraph (g) of section 210.28 relates to the admissibility of depositions into the record of the investigation. Section 210.28(g) refers to the ``filing'' of depositions with the Commission investigative attorney. Since ``filing'' generally refers to providing documents to the Office of the Secretary for inclusion in the official record of the investigation, the word appears to be inappropriate. Therefore the Commission proposes revising Sec. 210.28(g) to replace the phrase ``filed with the Commission investigative attorney'' with ``served upon the Commission investigative attorney.''

Paragraph (i)(4), Completion and Return of Depositions

Paragraph (i)(4) of section 210.28 relates to completion and return of depositions, and also refers to the ``filing'' of depositions. For the same reasons discussed above in connection with Sec. 210.28(g), the Commission proposes revising paragraph (i)(4) to refer to ``service'' rather than ``filing'' of depositions.

Sections 210.29, 210.30, and 210.31

Currently, the parties rely on administrative law judge ground rules for deadlines. The ITCTLA noted that waiting for the administrative law judge's ground rules to issue has resulted in delays in discovery in some investigations. Specifically, there have been delays concerning responses to interrogatories (paragraph (b)(2) of section 210.29), requests for documents and entry upon land (paragraph (b)(2) of section 210.30), and requests for admissions (paragraph (b) of section 210.31). Therefore, the Commission proposes to revise Sec. Sec. 210.29(b)(2), 210.30(b)(2), and 210.31(b), in accordance with the ITCTLA's suggestion, to add a default provision that would impose a ten day deadline for responding to, respectively, interrogatories (paragraph (b)(2) of section 210.29), requests for documents and entry upon land (paragraph (b)(2) of section 210.30), and requests for admissions (paragraph (b) of section 210.31). The Commission also proposes to revise these rules to provide that the ten day deadline may be modified by the administrative law judge's ground rules.

Section 210.31

Paragraph (d) of section 210.31 states that admissions will be used only for the pending investigation and will not be used against the party ``in any other proceeding,'' and section 210.3 defines an investigation as the original investigation into a violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337. In Certain LensFitted Film Packages, Inv. 337TA406, an issue arose regarding the use of a stipulation in an underlying proceeding and whether that stipulation would be binding upon the party in the related enforcement and advisory opinion proceeding. In that case, the administrative law judge determined in an initial determination that a stipulation from the underlying investigation was binding on the parties in the related proceeding. The administrative law judge reasoned:
* * * complainant agreed to the stipulation in the underlying proceeding, which stipulation was binding in the underlying proceeding and was relied upon to resolve certain issues with the resultant issuance of the general exclusion order at issue in the current proceedings. Hence, since the current proceedings are ancillary proceedings to the underlying investigation and have been instituted to enforce the general exclusion order from the underlying proceeding, the stipulation should be binding on the parties. Certain LensFitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337TA406 (Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings), Enforcement Initial Determination at 40 (Public Version, August 14, 2002).
Because the initial determination was not reviewed, this reasoning became part of the Commission's final determination. See Certain Lens Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337TA406, Notice of ReviewinPart, NonReviewinPart, and Remand of Enforcement Initial Determination and Initial Advisory Opinion to the Presiding Administrative Law Judge at 1 (August 7, 2002). The Commission believes that the same rationale should apply in all investigations and proposes that the rule be amended to allow the use of an admission against a party in related Commission proceedings, as defined in section 210.3, e.g., enforcement and advisory opinion proceedings.

Section 210.32

Paragraph (g) of section 210.32 establishes the procedure for obtaining judicial enforcement of a subpoena issued by the presiding administrative law judge. The Commission proposes revising this rule to require the presiding administrative law judge to certify
nonconfidential copies of the subpoena for which judicial enforcement is sought, together with nonconfidential copies of any attachment to the subpoena. Nonconfidential copies of these documents are needed for submission to the court in support of the Commission's request for enforcement of the subpoena.
Section 210.34

Paragraph (c), Violation of Protective Order

Paragraph (c) of section 210.34 addresses violations of protective orders. For the following reasons, the Commission proposes to revise the undesignated text at the end of Sec. 210.34(c) to provide that the identity of a person who has or is alleged to have violated an administrative protective order (``APO'') is to be given the same treatment accorded to confidential business information (``CBI'').

The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, requires that Federal agencies protect certain information in their possession concerning individuals. In particular, Sec. 552a(b) of the statute imposes specific limits on the disclosure of such information. In addition to any statutory requirements, the Commission's interest in keeping an APO breacher's identity confidential is also animated by an
[[Page 72288]]
acknowledgment that many infractions involve inadvertent and minor disclosures of information by attorneys who practice before the Commission. The Commission has sought to balance the need to sanction transgressions with the concern that the severity of the punishment should not exceed the magnitude of the offense. Disclosing to the public a finding, or even an allegation, of an APO breach can have an adverse effect on the attorney in question, over and above the effect of the sanction itself. Treating the identity of APO breachers as CBI conforms to Commission practice in cases under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. See 19 CFR 207.7 (provision governing disclosure of CBI subject to an APO under Title VII).

Investigations of alleged APO violations in section 337 cases currently involve participation by all parties in the underlying section 337 proceeding under Sec. 210.34(d)(5). To further this participation, the Commission proposes to permit the parties to an investigation to learn the identity of an alleged breacher. However, the Commission proposes to revise the undesignated text at the end of Sec. 210.34(c) to treat the identity of alleged APO breachers as confidential so that nonparties do not have access to such information.

In addition, the undesignated text at the end of paragraph (c) of section 210.34 provides for the issuance of sanctions when a signatory to an APO violates the APO. It is unclear from the current rule whether ALJs may issue sanctions, and if so, whether they are to do so by order, initial determination, or recommended determination. Accordingly, the Commission also proposes to revise this rule to require ALJs to rule on certain sanctions in the form of a recommended determination. This revision also clarifies that certain sanctions may be imposed only by the Commission and that the Commission must make an affirmative determination that such sanctions are warranted before they take effect.

The Commission also proposes to revise paragraph (c) of section 210.34 by adding the designation ``Note to paragraph (c):'' at the beginning of the undesignated text at the end of paragraph (c). This change is made for formal purposes, and to provide for clarity in any future reference to the text at the end of the paragraph.
Paragraph (d), Reporting Requests for Confidential Business Information

Paragraph (d) of section 210.34 imposes a reporting requirement for APO signatories concerning requests or orders requiring the signatory to disclose information (CBI) covered by the APO to a person not entitled to receive it under the APO or under Sec. 210.5(b) (which mirrors the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1337(n) concerning persons who are authorized recipients of CBI submitted to the Commission or exchanged among the parties in investigations or related proceedings under section 337). Administrative protective order breach investigations in the section 337 area have made clear that many attorneys are unaware of the existence of this reporting requirement. To highlight the existence of the reporting requirement, the Commission proposes including the reporting requirement and sanctions in the title of the rule, and revising the text of section 210.34 to place the reporting requirement and applicable sanction in separate paragraphs (paragraph (d) and new paragraph (e), respectively). The Commission proposes redesignating Sec. 210.34(d)(1) as Sec. 210.34(d), redesignating Sec. 210.34(d)(2) as Sec. 210.34(e), and revising the heading of section 210.34 to reflect the importance of the reporting requirement and the applicable sanction. The Commission also proposes separating the text of revised Sec. 210.34(d) into new paragraphs Sec. Sec. 210.34(d)(1)(5) for clarity, and adding a sentence at the end of section 210.34 to make it clear that the reporting requirement applies only to nonCommission requests for CBI.

The Commission also proposes to revise paragraph (d) of section 210.34 by adding the designation ``Note to paragraph (d):'' at the beginning of the undesignated text at the end of paragraph (d). This change is made for formal purposes, and to provide for clarity in any future reference to the text at the end of the paragraph.
Subpart FPrehearing Conferences and Hearings

Section 210.35

Existing section 210.35 provides generally for prehearing conferences. The Commission proposes revising section 210.35 to include new Sec. 210.35(a)(2) to expressly provide for prehearing settlement conferences. Accordingly, it is also proposed that existing Sec. Sec. 210.35(a)(2)(6) be renumbered as Sec. Sec. 210.35(a)(3)(7). Section 210.38

Paragraph (a) of section 210.38 lists the items that constitute the record of section 337 investigations. Paragraph (d) of section 210.38 governs an administrative law judge's certification of the record to the Commission. Missing physical exhibits that the ALJ presumably had returned to the submitting parties were a problem in connection with the transmittal of the record of Certain Ammonium Octamolybdate Isomers, Inv. No. 337TA477, Comm'n Op. (Jan. 2004) to a U.S. District Court in Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659(b). The Commission proposes amending Sec. Sec. 210.38(a) and (d) to require the administrative law judge to certify all physical exhibits entered into evidence and amending Sec. 210.38(d) to indicate that the administrative law judge may use his/her discretion as to whether substitution of a photographic reproduction of a large demonstrative exhibit would be appropriate.

Section 210.39

When civil litigation involving the parties to a section 337 investigation is pending concurrently with the investigation, a section 337 respondent who is a party to a civil action may move the court to stay the district court action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659(a), until the Commission's section 337 determination becomes final. After the stay is lifted, the Commission's section 337 record must be transmitted to the court and will be admissible in the civil action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659(b).

Section 210.39(b) provides for the transmission of a section 337 record to a U.S. District Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1659(b). To make Sec. 210.39(b) consistent with 28 U.S.C. 1659(b), the Commission proposes to revise the current wording of the rule to indicate that the Commission's record is to be transmitted to the court after the court dissolves the stay of the civil proceeding. To facilitate timely Commission compliance with a court order dissolving a stay of the civil action and requiring the Commission to transmit all or part of its section 337 record to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659(b), the Commission proposes to amend Sec. 210.39(b) to require the filing of written notice with the Secretary whenever (1) a section 337 party/civil action litigant asks the court to issue an order staying the civil action, and (2) whenever the district court issues an order dissolving the stay and directing the Commission to transmit all or part of the record to the court.
Subpart GDeterminations and Actions Taken

Section 210.42

Paragraph (a)(1) of section 210.42 generally relates to initial determinations on issues concerning violation of section 337. The Commission proposes changing paragraph (a)(1) for reasons explained [[Page 72289]]

below with regard to sections 210.42 and 210.43.

Paragraph (a)(2) of section 210.42 generally relates to declassification of information. Section 210.42(a)(2) currently does not conform to section 210.20 because it does not make clear that initial determinations on declassification may issue after any decision on termination, not just after the final initial determination issues. The Commission proposes to change Sec. 210.42(a)(2), which concerns initial determinations on declassification, to conform to section 210.20, which also concerns motions for declassification.
Sections 210.42 and 210.43

Review of Final Initial Determinations

Paragraphs (a) and (h) of section 210.42 and paragraph (d) of section 210.43 provide Commission deadlines for review of final initial determinations. The current rules concerning Commission review were promulgated in the 1970's when there were strict statutory deadlines for completion of Commission investigations, and final initial determinations, petitions, and responses were relatively short. Section 337 investigations during that time period also generally concerned less complicated technologies.

Final initial determinations, petitions, and responses to petitions have grown much lengthier over the last 30 years. At the same time, the number of section 337 complaints filed has grown tremendously, and the technology involved in the investigations has become steadily more complex. Recent experience indicates that these factors have combined to render insufficient the number of days allotted to the Commission to complete its investigations. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend Sec. Sec. 210.42(h)(2) and 210.43(d)(1) such that the Commission will have two months to determine whether to review a final initial determination and two additional months for final disposition of the investigation. In this connection, the Commission also proposes to amend Sec. 210.42(a)(1)(i) such that the administrative law judge would issue his final initial determination no later than four (4) months before the target date for completion of the investigation, regardless of whether the target date has been set at over 15 months. In order to accomplish these changes in Commission practice, the Commission proposes revisions to Sec. Sec. 210.42(a) and (h) and Sec. 210.43(d)(1). In order to comport with the change to Sec. 210.42(a)(1)(i) just discussed, the Commission also proposes to revise Sec. 210.50(a) by providing that if the target date does not exceed 16 months from the date of institution the order of the administrative law judge shall be final.

The proposed amendment to Sec. 210.43(d)(1), noted above, also includes a reference to the disposition of an initial determination under Sec. 210.42(a)(2) regarding the declassification of CBI. The rules currently do not expressly provide for filing a petition for review of initial determinations concerning declassification. Because such initial determinations are frequently the subject of petitions and responses, the Commission proposes to revise Sec. 210.42(h) to allow the Commission 45 days to determine whether to review initial determinations concerning declassification.

Review of Summary Initial Determinations

Under the current deadlines in paragraph (h) of section 210.42 and paragraph (d) of section 210.43, the Commission often has insufficient time to act on initial determinations granting summary determination that could terminate the investigation on the merits if it becomes the final determination of the Commission. The Commission proposes to add new paragraph (h)(6), and amend Sec. 210.42(h)(3) to refer to new paragraph (h)(6), such that the Commission's time for determining whether to review these summary initial determinations would increase by 15 days, i.e., from 30 days to 45 days. As a result of the addition of Sec. 210.42(h)(6) and the change to Sec. 210.42(h)(3), the Commission also proposes to amend Sec. 210.43(d)(1), which concerns the grant or denial of a petition for review.

Section 210.42(i), Notice of Determination

Paragraph (i) of section 210.42 discusses the issuance, service, and Federal Register publication of notices announcing the Commission's decision on whether it will review an initial determination. The last sentence of Sec. 210.42(i) indicates that the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing whether the Commission has decided to review the initial determination only if that decision results in termination of the investigation in its entirety. Section 201.10, however, states that notices will be published in the Federal Register, as appropriate. In fact, the Commission routinely publishes notices concerning its decision on whether to review a final initial determination because the notice usually requests submissions from the public on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. In addition, Sec. 210.49(b) (concerning publication of final determinations that result in the issuance of an order) and Sec. 210.66(f) (concerning final disposition of an initial determination concerning temporary relief) require publication in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend Sec. 210.42(i) to clarify which notices related to initial determinations will be published in the Federal Register.
Section 210.43, Deadlines for Filing Petitions for Review of IDs

Section 210.43 provides deadlines for filing petitions for review of initial determinations and responses to petitions. Currently, Sec. Sec. 210.43(a), 210.43(c), and 210.43(d) provide the following schedule for filing petitions for review of various types of initial determinations:
Commission deadline for Response to petitions determining whether to Initial determination concerning Petitions for review due due review the initial determination Violation Sec. 210.42(a)(1).... 10 days from service of 5 business days from 45 days from service of the initial service of any petition. the initial determination on private determination on parties. private parties. Forfeiture of respondent's bond 10 days from issuance of 5 business days from 45 days from service of Sec. 210.50(d)(3). the initial service of any petition. the initial determination. determination on private parties. Forfeiture of complainant's 10 days from issuance of 5 business days from 45 days from service of temporary relief bond Sec. the initial service of any petition. the initial 210.70(c). determination. determination on private parties. [[Page 72290]]
Other matters Sec. 210.42(c)... 5 business days from 5 business days from 30 days from service of issuance of the initial service of any petition. the initial determination. determination on private parties. Formal enforcement proceedings By order of the By order of the 90 days from service of Sec. 210.75(b). Commission. Commission. the initial determination on private parties.

As this chart shows, the methods for calculating filing dates for petitions for review are not uniform. This lack of uniformity has led to both confusion and gamesmanship by the private parties. Under the recent amendments to sections 210.6 and 210.7, all parties receive initial determinations by overnight delivery, and initial determinations may not be picked up from the Commission. While the amendments to sections 210.6 and 210.7 may have obviated concerns about gamesmanship, they do nothing to eliminate the confusion that sometimes exists concerning when a petition must be filed.

Because large initial determinations that are filed near the end of the business day are rarely ready for service on the day of issuance, and are almost always served on the following business day, the Commission proposes that all due dates be calculated from date of service. Thus, the Commission proposes amendm

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Eric Frahm, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, telephone 202 2053107. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 2022051810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov.