Rules of General Application and Adjudication and Enforcement, 23474-23487 [2013-08931]

Agencies

• INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23474-23487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08931]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

19 CFR Parts 201 and 210

[Docket No. MISC-040]


Rules of General Application and Adjudication and Enforcement

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') amends its 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.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 20, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Worth, Office of the General 
Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, telephone 202-
205-3065. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on 
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also 
be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 This rulemaking seeks to update certain outdated provisions and 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 is amending its Part 201 rules of general 
application and Part 210 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. The 
Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the 
Federal Register at 77 FR 41120 (July 12, 2012), proposing to amend the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure to make certain changes to 
rules of general application, adjudication, and enforcement.
    Although the Commission considers these rules to be procedural 
rules which are excepted from notice-and-comment under 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(3)(A), the Commission invited the public to comment on all the 
proposed rules amendments. The NOPR requested public comment on the 
proposed rules within 60 days of publication of the NOPR. Subsequently, 
in response to requests to file comments outside the 60 days, the 
Commission by letter granted extensions of up to two weeks to the ITC 
Trial Lawyers Association (``the ITC TLA''), the American Intellectual 
Property Law Association (``AIPLA''), and Innovation Alliance. The 
Commission received a total of 8 sets of comments, one each from the 
American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law (``the 
ABA''); AIPLA; the law firm of Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP 
(``AMS''); Broadcom; Cisco; Innovation Alliance; the Intellectual 
Property Owners Association (``IPO''); and the ITC TLA.
    The Commission carefully considered all comments received. The 
Commission's response is provided below in a section-by-section 
analysis. The Commission appreciates the time and effort the 
commentators devoted to provide comments on the NOPR.

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 proposed rulemaking was required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any 
other statute. Although the Commission chose to publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, these 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 final 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 
expenditure in the aggregate by state, local, and tribal governments, 
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and 
will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as defined 
in 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    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

[[Page 23475]]

the reporting requirements of the Contract With America Advancement Act 
of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) because they concern rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.
    The amendments are not subject to section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)).

Overview of the Amendments to the Regulations

    Many of the final rules set forth in this notice are identical to 
the correspondingly numbered proposed rules published on July 12, 2012. 
For many of the proposed rules, only positive comments were received or 
no comment was received. The Commission found no reason to change those 
proposed rules on its own before adopting them as final rules (with the 
exception of Sec.  210.5, for which the Commission provides a further 
explanation below). Thus, the preamble to those unchanged final rules 
is as set forth in the section-by-section analysis of the proposed 
rules found at 77 FR 41120 (July 12, 2012).
    The Commission received comments with forty suggestions for 
modifications. Those suggestions and the views of the Commission are 
summarized in the section-by-section analysis of this notice of final 
rulemaking. The commentary in the July 12, 2012, notice is considered 
part of the preamble to these final rules, to the extent that such 
commentary is not inconsistent with the discussion below. The final 
rules differ from the proposed rules for nine of the rules (for a total 
of 16 changes from the NOPR). The ways in which the final rules differ 
from the proposed rules are summarized here.
    First, with regard to Sec.  201.16, relating to service of process, 
the Commission has used the term ``express delivery'' instead of 
``overnight delivery'' in certain instances, and added a definition for 
express delivery. Further, the Commission has eliminated unnecessary 
language from the provision for electronic service in paragraph (f).
    Second, with regard to Sec.  210.5, relating to public versions of 
documents containing confidential business information, the Commission 
has concluded that parties must upon request provide support in the 
record for any proposed redactions that parties may submit to an 
administrative law judge or the Commission for the preparation of the 
public version of a document consistent with Commission rules 201.6 and 
210.4.
    Third, with regard to Sec.  210.8, relating to commencement of 
preinstitution proceedings, the Commission has allowed parties to 
submit the public version of public interest comments on the day 
following submission of the confidential version.
    Fourth, with regard to Sec.  210.12, relating to the complaint, the 
Commission has decided that the newly required statement of accused 
products in plain English in the complaint will not be included in the 
notice of investigation as originally proposed.
    Fifth, with regard to Sec. Sec.  210.16 and 210.17, relating to 
default and failures to act other than statutory forms of default, the 
Commission has clarified that both rules are affected by the rule 
change regarding default by notice. If the named respondent has not yet 
responded to the complaint and notice of investigation, then the 
default resulting from a notice of intent to default is under Sec.  
210.16. If the named respondent has responded to the complaint or 
notice of investigation, then the default resulting from a notice of 
intent to default is under Sec.  210.17. The Commission has further 
clarified that a respondent's filing of a notice of intent to default 
eliminates the need for an order to show cause why the respondent 
should not be found in default.
    Sixth, with regard to Sec.  210.21, relating to termination of 
investigations, the Commission has clarified the wording of consent 
order stipulations and what is required in consent orders; clarified 
that it is respondents who sign consent order stipulations; codified 
the existing practice that the administrative law judge may, in the 
exercise of discretion, limit service of settlement agreements to 
settling parties and the Commission investigative attorney for good 
cause shown; retained the language that settling parties must aver that 
there are no other agreements between parties; made a conforming change 
to require that with terminations under paragraph (a)(1) for withdrawal 
of the complaint, as with other paragraphs of Sec.  210.21, the parties 
must submit any settlement agreements; and combined the prohibition on 
importation in proposed paragraphs (c)(4)(iii) and (c)(4)(iv).
    Seventh, with regard to Sec.  210.28, relating to depositions, the 
Commission has clarified that each notice for corporate designations 
would only count as one deposition; clarified that related respondents 
are treated as one entity for purposes of the rule; and eliminated the 
need to respond to a notice of deposition other than to make 
objections.
    Eighth, with regard to Sec.  210.29, relating to interrogatories, 
the Commission has clarified that related respondents are treated as 
one entity for purposes of the rule.
    Ninth, with regard to Sec.  210.50, relating to Commission action, 
public interest, and bonding by respondents, the Commission has 
provided that parties may file the public version of public interest 
submissions on the day following submission of the confidential 
version.
    The following section-by-section analysis includes a comprehensive 
discussion of all rules for which commentators suggested modifications.

Section-by-Section Analysis

19 CFR Part 201

Subpart B--Initiation and Conduct of Investigations

Section 201.16 Service of Process and Other Documents

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  201.16 by adding a paragraph 
(a)(3) to provide that the Commission may use overnight service to 
effectuate service. The ABA suggests changing the wording from 
``leaving a copy at the office of such attorney'' to ``by serving the 
attorney by overnight delivery'' or ``by express delivery.'' The 
Commission adopts the suggested change so that it is clear that the 
entire paragraph is discussing service by overnight delivery.
    The NOPR proposed to further amend Sec.  201.16 by adding a 
paragraph (a)(4) to provide that service by overnight delivery is 
complete upon submitting the document to the overnight delivery service 
or depositing it in the appropriate container for pick-up. The ABA 
suggests qualifying this by adding ``such that delivery can be 
accomplished by the next business day.'' The Commission declines to 
adopt this suggestion. The Commission notes that if a document being 
served is submitted for delivery after the overnight delivery service's 
last pick up of the day, it is the Commission's practice to consider 
the document as being served the following day. As this Commission 
practice addresses the problem identified by the ABA, the Commission 
does not adopt the suggestion.
    The NOPR proposed to revise Sec.  201.16(e) by adding five calendar 
days to the response time when overnight delivery is to a foreign 
country. The ITC TLA suggests using the term ``express delivery'' 
instead of ``overnight delivery'' and defining ``express delivery'' to 
be domestic overnight delivery service or the foreign equivalent 
thereof. Similarly, the ITC

[[Page 23476]]

TLA suggests that the Commission use the term ``express delivery'' in 
its certificates of service rather than ``international'' service. The 
Commission adopts these changes in recognition that so-called 
``overnight delivery'' is not overnight when it is international. In 
this connection, the Commission substitutes a definition of ``express 
delivery'' for ``overnight service'' in Sec.  201.16(e), explaining 
that ``express delivery'' refers to overnight delivery when the 
delivery is to a location in the United States, and to the equivalent 
express service when the delivery is to a foreign location.
    The NOPR next proposed to amend Sec.  201.16 by revising paragraph 
(f) to provide that no additional time after service of the document is 
added for response when electronic service is used. The ABA suggests 
striking the words ``after the service of the document'' from the 
proposed rule because the words are unnecessary. The Commission agrees 
and adopts the suggestion.

Part 210

Subpart A--Rules of General Applicability

Section 210.4 Written Submissions; Representations; Sanctions

    The ITC TLA suggests that the Commission move towards eliminating 
the requirement for duplicate service of paper copies. The Commission 
has determined that this is beyond the scope of the proposed rule, but 
agrees that this may be a topic for a future rulemaking.

Section 210.5 Confidential Business Information

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.5 to provide that, absent good 
cause for an extension of time, the Commission and ALJs would issue any 
public versions of confidential documents (e.g., opinions and orders) 
within 30 days of the issuance of the confidential version. Common 
practice is for the Commission or the ALJ to solicit proposed 
redactions from the parties in order to facilitate the preparation of 
the public version of the document. After deliberation as to whether 
the proposed rule will allow sufficient time for the preparation of 
public versions, and in order not to place an undue burden on the ALJs, 
the final rule explains that, upon request by the Commission (or the 
presiding ALJ, if the document was issued by an ALJ), parties must 
provide support pursuant to Sec. Sec.  201.6 and 210.4 for any proposed 
redactions that parties may submit to the Commission or an ALJ for the 
preparation of the public version of a document. The Commission notes 
that ALJs are free to adjust their ground rules for the provision of 
proposed redactions, and that parties are expected to comply with the 
ground rules of the presiding ALJ.
Subpart B--Commencement of Preinstitution Proceedings and 
Investigations

Section 210.8 Commencement of Preinstitution Proceedings

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.8 to provide that entities 
filing submissions on public interest issues raised by the complaint 
file a public version of the submission along with the confidential 
version. AIPLA and the ITC TLA suggest that the rules allow entities to 
file the public version on the following business day. AIPLA argues 
that requiring a public version on the same day would place additional 
strain on the already tight timeline of Section 337 investigations. ITC 
TLA states that this would be consistent with the practice in the 
Commission's Title VII investigations under Rule 207.3(c).
    The Commission adopts the suggested change. In our view, allowing 
parties to submit a public version the following business day is 
reasonable, and is consistent with Commission rule 207.3(c).
Subpart C--Pleadings

Section 210.12 The Complaint

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.12 to revise paragraphs 
(a)(6)(i) and (ii) to require a detailed statement in the complaint as 
to whether a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being 
established (and if the latter, facts showing complainant is actively 
engaged in steps leading to the exploitation of its intellectual 
property rights, and that there is a significant likelihood that an 
industry will be established in the future). The ABA suggests an 
alternate wording for paragraph (a)(6)(ii), which deals with 
allegations of violations of section 337(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). 
Specifically, the ABA suggests that the Commission require a detailed 
description of the ``domestic industry affected.'' The Commission 
declines to adopt the suggested change. The ABA's suggested language 
``domestic industry affected'' is not a sufficient description of the 
statutory text and the Commission requires specific factual pleading in 
the cases of domestic industries that exist and also those that are in 
the process of being established. Moreover, the language of section 
337(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) speaks in terms of an ``industry in the United 
States'' and the ``establishment of such an industry.''
    The NOPR also proposed to amend Sec.  210.12 by adding a paragraph 
(a)(12) which requires the complaint to include a statement in plain 
English of the types of products that are accused. In addition, the 
NOPR proposed that the notice of investigation published in the Federal 
Register would include this plain English statement. The ABA suggests 
that the Commission make the further provision that the scope of the 
investigation will be restricted to those products enumerated in the 
Federal Register notice.
    The final rule retains the requirement that the plain English 
statement must be set forth in the complaint. However, to avoid 
potential ambiguities regarding the scope of an investigation, the 
statement in question will not be included in the notice of 
investigation as originally proposed. The scope of the investigation is 
defined by the notice of investigation, not by the complaint. The NOPR 
did not provide adequate notice for public comment purposes that the 
inclusion of the statement in the notice of investigation would limit 
the scope of the investigation. As such, the statement will not be 
listed in the notice of investigation. The Commission proposed that the 
complaint describe accused products in plain terms for public notice 
and informational purposes. Therefore, the ABA's suggestion to use this 
statement to limit the scope of the notice of investigation is beyond 
the scope of the NOPR and of this rulemaking. The Commission may 
consider the ABA's suggestion for a future rulemaking.

Section 210.14 Amendments to Pleadings and Notice; Supplemental 
Submissions; Counterclaims; Respondent Submissions on the Public 
Interest (Consolidation of Investigations)

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.14, inter alia, to allow the 
administrative law judges to consolidate investigations. The ITC TLA 
opposes the proposed rule to the extent that the same limits on 
discovery under proposed rule 210.28(a) would apply to consolidated 
investigations. The Commission will consider the comment in the context 
of Sec.  210.28. As such, the final rule is unchanged from the proposed 
rule.
Subpart D--Motions

Section 210.16 Default and Section 210.17 Failures To Act Other Than 
the Statutory Forms of Default

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.17 to provide that a 
respondent may file a notice of intent to default.

[[Page 23477]]

The ITC TLA supports the proposed rule.
    The ABA points out that the consequence of default is different 
depending on whether the respondent has responded to the complaint and 
notice of investigation. Section 210.16 is directed to statutory 
default under Section 337(g) (which provides for default where ``the 
person fails to respond to the complaint and notice or otherwise fails 
to appear to answer the complaint and notice,'' 19 U.S.C. 
1337(g)(1)(C)), whereas Sec.  210.17 is directed to failures to act 
other than the statutory forms of default. The ABA is correct that the 
proposed rule change regarding default by notice impacts both Sec.  
210.16 and Sec.  210.17. The Commission adopts the ABA's suggestion to 
amend both Sec. Sec.  210.16 and 210.17 to provide that if the named 
respondent has not answered the complaint and notice of investigation 
(thus satisfying Section 337(g)(1)(C)), then the default by notice may 
be treated as if under Sec.  210.16, but otherwise the default by 
notice shall be treated in the same manner as any failure to act under 
Sec.  210.17.
    The ABA argues that it is unclear how a named respondent who had 
not yet responded to the complaint would be treated, and that it is 
unclear whether the two-step show cause procedure of Commission rule 
210.16(b) would be required after the filing of a notice of intent to 
default. The ABA suggests that the rule indicate that, after the filing 
of a notice of intent to default, the ALJ shall issue an ID finding 
such a respondent in default, and that such a default shall be treated 
``as if under'' Commission rule 210.16. The Commission adopts the 
suggested change and amends section 210.16 to provide that the ALJ 
shall issue an ID finding such a respondent (i.e., a named respondent 
who has not yet responded to the complaint and notice of investigation 
when that respondent files a notice of intent to default) in default, 
thus eliminating the need for the two-step show cause procedure of 
Commission rule 210.16(b) with the filing of a notice of intent to 
default. Likewise, a notice of intent to default under Commission rule 
210.17 (i.e., by a respondent who has answered the complaint or notice 
of investigation) will eliminate the need for the two-step show cause 
procedure.

Section 210.21 Termination of Investigations

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.21 to require that parties 
seeking to terminate an investigation by settlement agreement or 
consent order provide a copy of any agreements between the parties. The 
ITC TLA supports the proposed rule. AIPLA suggests that the Commission 
limit access to all documents to only the Commission, stating that it 
would not be in the interest of the settling parties for non-settling 
respondents,who would not otherwise have access to the documents, to 
have access. The Commission declines to accept the proposed change. The 
Commission believes that the standard procedure generally requires 
service on all parties under the protective order to encourage 
transparency. Nevertheless, the Commission concurs that the 
administrative law judge may, in the exercise of the administrative law 
judge's discretion, limit service of a settlement agreement to the 
settling parties and the Commission investigative attorney on motion 
for good cause shown.
    Upon consideration of the proposed rule, the Commission clarifies 
the wording of the rule as to what a consent order requires, i.e., a 
statement of the identity of complainant, the respondent, and the 
subject articles, and a statement of any allegation in the complaint 
that the respondents sell for importation, import, or sell after 
importation the subject articles in violation of section 337.
    Further, upon consideration of the proposed rule, the Commission 
changes Sec.  210.21(c)(4)(ii) to refer to respondents who submit a 
consent order stipulation rather than to ``parties.'' It is only 
necessary for a respondent to sign a consent order stipulation, even if 
there is a joint motion with the complainant for termination based on a 
consent order.
    There are four other changes from the proposed rule. The final rule 
retains the language of the current paragraph (b) that the settling 
parties must aver that there are no other agreements between the 
parties. Second, the final rule requires that parties seeking to 
terminate the investigation under paragraph (a)(1) on the basis of 
withdrawal of the complaint or good cause must provide any settlement 
agreements. The proposed rule provided that parties seeking to 
terminate the investigation by consent order under paragraph (c), as 
with settlement agreements under paragraph (b), must provide any 
settlement agreements between the parties. As all other types of 
termination under section 210.21 would require parties to submit any 
agreements for review in light of relevant public interest 
considerations, the final rule recognizes that paragraph (a)(1) should 
not be a gap or loophole. Thus Sec.  210.21(a)(1) will require 
submission of any settlement agreements as well. Third, the final rule 
changes the wording of Sec.  210.21(c)(3) to clarify the type of 
statements required in a consent order stipulation. Fourth, the final 
rule changes Sec.  210.21(c)(4) to combine the prohibition on 
importation of proposed paragraph (iii) and the exceptions for consent 
of proposed paragraph (iv), and to renumber the remaining paragraphs in 
the final rule accordingly.
Subpart E--Discovery and Compulsory Process

Section 210.28(a) Depositions (Limit on the Number of Depositions)

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.28 to limit the number of 
depositions that parties could take absent stipulation or order for 
good cause shown, such that complainants would be limited to no more 
than 5 fact depositions per respondent and no more than 20 total, 
whichever is greater, respondents as a group would be limited to no 
more than 20 fact depositions, and if the investigative attorney is a 
party, he or she could take 10 fact depositions and participate in all 
depositions taken by any party in the investigation. This proposed rule 
seeks to prevent an undue burden on parties, consistent with Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a). The Commission notes that ALJs have 
inherent authority to limit discovery, e.g., depositions, 
interrogatories, witness statements, and exhibits, in their ground 
rules, subject only to due process constraints.
    Cisco argues that the Federal Circuit bench and bar has favorably 
looked upon Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i), which 
limits each side to taking ten depositions total, and that a similar 
rule should apply to the Commission. Cisco suggests that the proposed 
rule should be modified to limit the total number of fact depositions 
that may be taken of any one party or third party and their affiliates 
to ten, absent a stipulation or order on written motion to the ALJ for 
good cause shown. AIPLA cautions against applying the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure to Section 337 investigations and suggests keeping the 
current practice, whereby the ALJs limit discovery through their ground 
rules. AIPLA also suggests that the rule provide specifically for the 
case of consolidated investigations.
    IPO argues that there is an imbalance, stating that if there are 21 
respondents then complainants could take 105 depositions, while the 
respondents, who may be unrelated to each other, would be limited to 20 
depositions. IPO further

[[Page 23478]]

argues that there may be more than 20 named inventors for respondents 
to depose. IPO next states that it is unclear whether it would count as 
more than one deposition if a party designates more than one person to 
testify on its behalf. IPO suggests that the Commission enumerate what 
factors would constitute good cause to increase the number of 
depositions, and that the Commission clarify whether any deposition in 
which a person is designated to testify on one or more topics counts as 
a separate deposition.
    The ABA argues that it is unclear whether the maximum for 
complainants is 20 depositions total or 5 depositions per respondent, 
that related respondents should be treated as a group, and that it is 
unclear whether 30(b)(6) notices are counted as one deposition. The ABA 
suggests that each 30(b)(6) notice be treated as one deposition but 
that parties be limited to two Rule 30(b)(6) notices of each other 
party, that the ITC adopt the 30(b)(6) language of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, and that each person deposed be subject to a seven 
hour, one-day limitation present in the Federal Rules absent permission 
of the ALJ for additional time.
    The ITC TLA agrees with the principle of limiting the number of 
depositions, but suggests that the administrative law judge set limits 
for depositions in each investigation after the parties confer and each 
party submits a proposed list of depositions. The ITC TLA argues that 
the number of necessary depositions will vary from investigation to 
investigation based on the number of asserted patents, the number of 
named inventors on the patents, the quantity of prior art that needs to 
be authenticated, and whether the Commission has delegated the taking 
of evidence on the public interest to the administrative law judge. 
Additionally, the ITC TLA argues that the proposed rule would have the 
unintended consequence of limiting discovery depending on the number of 
corporate representatives designated to respond to a Rule 30(b)(6) 
notice. AMS suggests that no limitation should be placed on the number 
of depositions, but should the Commission decide to adopt the proposed 
rule, AMS suggests that Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, inventor 
depositions, and third party depositions be excluded from the proposed 
limitation.
    The rule is unchanged from the proposed rule, with the 
clarifications that (a) each notice for corporate designations (akin to 
Rule 30(b)(6) practice under the Federal Rules) would include all 
corporate representatives designated to respond, and would only count 
as one deposition for purpose of the rule, and (b) that related 
respondents would be treated as one entity for purpose of the rule. 
With regard to the ABA's comment that the rule appears ambiguous with 
regard to the maximum number of fact depositions permitted for the 
complainants, the Commission clarifies that the rule provides that the 
complainants may take a maximum of 20 fact depositions or five fact 
depositions per respondent, whichever is greater. The Commission does 
not believe that a special rule is required for consolidated 
investigations although consolidation of investigations may constitute 
good cause for an increase in the number of depositions at the 
discretion of the administrative law judge. While the Commission agrees 
with the ITC TLA that the number of depositions required may vary from 
investigation to investigation, the proposed rule allows the 
administrative law judge to increase the number of allotted depositions 
for good cause shown. However, the purpose of the rule is to reduce the 
burdens and costs of discovery by imposing reasonable limits on 
discovery, and in doing so to avoid excessive motions practice before 
the ALJs. Adopting the ITC TLA's suggestion that the ALJ set limits in 
each investigation may not accomplish the purpose of the rule. Thus, 
the rule sets a reasonable limit on discovery while allowing the ALJs 
to exercise discretion to modify the limit for good cause shown.
    As to IPO's argument that the number of depositions would be 
excessive if there are many respondents, the Commission notes that if 
there are different respondents, it may be necessary to take discovery 
from each respondent (or group of related respondents) to the 
investigation.

Section 210.28(c) Depositions (Response and Objections to Notice of 
Deposition)

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.28 to provide that parties may 
respond and object to a notice of deposition within ten days of service 
of the notice of deposition. The ITC TLA suggests that the rule provide 
that parties may object to a notice within 10 days but suggests 
eliminating the proposed provision for a response to the notice. The 
ITC TLA argues that the recipient of the notice of deposition may not 
be able to identify the corporate designees within 10 days. The 
Commission adopts the suggestion so that the recipient must make any 
objections within 10 days, and state the reasons therefor, but the 
recipient need not identify the corporate designees within this time 
frame because 10 days may not be enough time to identify the corporate 
designees.

Section 210.29 Interrogatories (Limit on the Number of Interrogatories)

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.29 to limit the number of 
interrogatories that any party may serve on any other party to 175. 
Cisco agrees with the effort of the rules to limit the number of 
interrogatories but suggests that the Commission limit the number of 
interrogatories that may be served on a party to forty. Cisco points to 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(a)(i), which limits each party to 
serving twenty-five interrogatories on any other party absent 
stipulation or leave of court. Cisco cites several recent Section 337 
investigations in which the respondents filed thousands of pages in 
response to interrogatories. Cisco also suggests that related parties 
(i.e., parties and their affiliates) be grouped together for purposes 
of the rule. AIPLA cautions against applying the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure to Section 337 investigations and suggests keeping the 
current practice, whereby the ALJs limit discovery through their ground 
rules. AIPLA also suggests that the rule provide specifically for the 
case of consolidated investigations. IPO suggests a presumptive limit 
of 50 to 100 interrogatories, which it argues would be higher than the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sufficient to allow adequate 
discovery while helping to limit the cost of responding to written 
discovery. The ITC TLA and AMS support the proposed rule. The ITC TLA 
points out that the proposed rule is consistent with the ground rules 
of the administrative law judges.
    The final rule is unchanged from the proposed rule with the 
clarification that related respondents are treated as one entity for 
purposes of the rule. The proposed rule is consistent with the ALJ 
ground rules and allows a change to the number of allowed 
interrogatories for good cause. The default number of 175 
interrogatories (or subparts) has worked well in current practice, 
allowing parties sufficient discovery while minimizing motions 
practice. The Commission does not believe that a special rule is 
required for consolidated investigations, although consolidation of 
investigations may constitute good cause for an increase in the number 
of interrogatories at the discretion of the administrative law judge.

Section 210.31 Requests for Admissions

    Cisco suggests that the Commission amend Sec.  210.31 to limit each 
party to 40

[[Page 23479]]

requests for admission (or subparts thereof) from any other party 
(including affiliates thereof).
    This proposal is beyond the scope of the Commission's Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission may consider this topic for a 
future rulemaking.

Section 210.32 Subpoenas

    Broadcom and Cisco suggest that the Commission amend Sec.  210.32 
to allocate the burden to the party that is seeking discovery from a 
third party to move to compel rather than requiring a third party to 
move to quash a subpoena.
    This proposal is beyond the scope of the Commission's Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission may consider this topic for a 
future rulemaking.
Subpart G--Determinations and Action Taken

Section 210.43 Petitions for Review [and the Summary Thereof in 
Appendix A]

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.43 to make a technical 
correction to change the time for a response to a petition of a summary 
determination that would terminate the investigation from 10 business 
days to 10 calendar days. AIPLA opposes this change, stating that 
shortening the time period for a response would present difficulties 
for attorneys. The ITC TLA also opposes the change, stating that it may 
be prejudicial on foreign parties. This was intended to be a technical 
correction, as the summary table in Appendix A to the rules already 
provides for 10 calendar days. The rule is unchanged from the proposed 
rule because it merely makes the technical correction. The rule 
provides only two fewer days for a petition for review of a summary 
determination that would terminate the investigation than are provided 
for a petition for review of a final ID and there are typically fewer 
issues in a summary determination ID than in a final ID.
    The NOPR further proposed to provide an express statement 
prohibiting parties from evading the page limits for petitions and 
responses by incorporating other pleadings by reference. AIPLA argues 
that it is ``against the interest of the investigation'' to limit pages 
because arguments not contained in the brief are waived. The ITC TLA 
points out that parties are required to state their arguments in 
detail. AIPLA and the ITC TLA suggest that either there should be no 
page limits or the Commission should allow the parties to petition the 
Commission for additional pages.
    The proposed rule did not revisit the issue of page limits which 
were provided in the 2008 rulemaking, 73 FR 38319, 38325 (July 7, 
2008). The proposed rule merely explained that parties cannot evade 
these page limits through incorporation of other pleadings by 
reference. The Commission believes that the existing page limits are 
adequate for the parties to avoid waiver of arguments not raised in the 
briefs and views incorporation by reference to be inconsistent with the 
existing rule.

Section 210.50 Commission Action, Public Interest, and Bonding by 
Respondents

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.50 to provide that entities 
filing submissions on public interest issues raised by the ID file a 
public version of the submission with the confidential version. AMS 
points out that this shortens the time for filing a public version from 
10 calendar days, which is the default time period for filing public 
versions provided by Commission rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)(3). AMS submits 
that the NOPR does not provide a reason for the requirement of 
concurrent filing and argues that this would create an undue burden on 
the party filing. AIPLA and the ITC TLA make a similar argument. The 
Commission adopts the AIPLA's suggestion to allow parties to file the 
public version on the next business day following submission of the 
confidential version. Allowing parties to submit a public version the 
following day is reasonable, and is consistent with Commission rule 
207.3(c).
    The ABA further suggests amending Commission rule 210.50(a)(4) to 
allow 45 days for submission of public interest submissions because, 
under the proposed Commission rule 210.5, the public version of the 
initial determination and the recommended determination on remedy would 
have issued 30 days after the confidential version, and submissions 
relating to the public interest would be due on the same day. This 
proposal is beyond the scope of the Commission's Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, but may be revisited in a future rulemaking. The Commission 
notes that the Commission practice is to publish a notice in the 
Federal Register following the issuance of the recommended 
determination, soliciting public interest submissions. This notice 
summarizes the recommended determination in order to provide notice to 
the public.
Subpart I--Enforcement Procedures and Advisory Opinions

Section 210.75(b) (Formal Enforcement Proceedings) and 210.76 
(Modification Proceedings)

    The NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.75(b) to shorten the period 
for determining whether to review an enforcement ID in a formal 
enforcement proceeding from 90 days to 45 days. The NOPR further 
proposed to amend Sec.  210.75(b) to provide 10 (calendar) days for 
petitions and to provide 5 business days for responses thereto. 
Similarly, the NOPR proposed to amend Sec.  210.76 to provide 10 
(calendar) days for comments and 5 business days for responses thereto.
    The ITC TLA supports expediting final resolution of an enforcement 
proceeding but suggests 60 days for the period for determining whether 
to review the ID, stating its concern that 45 days may not be adequate 
for sufficient consideration by the Commission if the ITC TLA's 
suggestion for briefing were accepted. Specifically, the ITC TLA 
proposes 10 business days for petitions for review, as for current rule 
210.43. The Commission declines the ITC TLA's suggestion that the 
Commission set the deadline for determining whether to review an 
enforcement ID to be 60 days from service of the enforcement ID. There 
is a statutory mandate to conclude an investigation and make a 
determination on violation at the earliest practicable time, 19 U.S.C. 
1337(b). The Commission believes that, in most enforcement proceedings, 
45 days is a sufficient period for its decision on whether to review 
the enforcement ID, and notes that this time period is comparable to 
that for determining whether to review a summary determination that 
would terminate an investigation. These two types of decisions are 
comparable in terms of the tasks the Commission needs to accomplish. 
The Commission has found the 45 day limit to be workable in the context 
of summary determinations that would terminate an investigation, and 
therefore concludes that the same time limit should be applicable for 
enforcement proceedings.

List of Subjects

19 CFR Part 201

    Administration practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

19 CFR Part 210

    Administration practice and procedure, Business and industry,

[[Page 23480]]

Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Investigations.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 19 CFR parts 201 and 210 
are amended as set forth below:

PART 201--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335), 
and sec. 603 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2482), unless 
otherwise noted.

Subpart B--Initiation and Conduct of Investigations

0
2. Amend Sec.  201.16 by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e); and
0
d. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (f).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  201.16  Service of process and other documents.

    (a) * * *
    (3) By using an express delivery service to send a copy of the 
document to the principal office of such person, partnership, 
corporation, association, or other organization, or, if an attorney 
represents any of the above before the Commission, by serving the 
attorney by express delivery.
    (4) When service is by mail, it is complete upon mailing of the 
document. When service is by an express service, service is complete 
upon submitting the document to the express delivery service or 
depositing it in the appropriate container for pick-up by the express 
delivery service.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Each document filed with the Secretary to the Commission by a 
party in the course of an investigation (as provided in Sec.  201.8 of 
this part) shall be served on each other party to the investigation (as 
provided in Sec.  210.4(i) of this chapter for investigations under 19 
U.S.C. 1337).
* * * * *
    (e) Additional time after service by express delivery. Whenever a 
party or Federal agency or department has the right or is required to 
perform some act or take some action within a prescribed period after 
the service of a document upon it and the document is served by express 
delivery, one (1) day shall be added to the prescribed period if the 
service is to a destination in the United States, and five (5) days 
shall be added to the prescribed period if the service is to a 
destination outside the United States. ``Service by express delivery'' 
refers to a method that would provide delivery by the next business day 
within the United States and refers to the equivalent express delivery 
service when the delivery is to a foreign location.
    (f) * * * If electronic service is used, no additional time is 
added to the prescribed period. * * *

PART 210--ADJUDICATION AND ENFORCEMENT

0
3. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 1333, 1335, and 1337.

Subpart A--Rules of General Applicability

0
4. Amend Sec.  210.3 by adding a definition of Ancillary proceeding in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  210.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Ancillary proceeding has the same meaning as related proceeding.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  210.4 by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.4  Written submissions; representations; sanctions.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Responses to a complaint, briefs, comments and responses 
thereto, compliance reports, motions and responses or replies thereto, 
petitions and replies thereto, prehearing statements, and proposed 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and responses thereto provided 
for under Sec. Sec.  210.4(d), 210.13, 210.8, 210.14, 210.15, 210.16, 
210.17, 210.18, 210.19, 210.20, 210.21, 210.23, 210.24, 210.25, 210.26, 
210.33, 210.34, 210.35, 210.36, 210.38, 210.40, 210.43, 210.45, 210.46, 
210.47, 210.50, 210.52, 210.53, 210.57, 210.59, 210.66, 210.70, or 
210.71; and submissions filed with the Secretary pursuant to an order 
of the presiding administrative law judge shall be filed 
electronically, and true paper copies of such submissions shall be 
filed by 12 noon, eastern time, on the next business day.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  210.5 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.5  Confidential business information.

* * * * *
    (f) When the Commission or the administrative law judge issues a 
confidential version of an order, initial determination, opinion, or 
other document, the Commission, or the presiding administrative law 
judge if the administrative law judge has issued the confidential 
version, shall issue any public version of the document within 30 days, 
unless good cause exists to extend the deadline. An administrative law 
judge or the Commission may extend this time by order. Upon request by 
the Commission, or the administrative law judge if the administrative 
law judge has issued the confidential version, parties must provide 
support in the record for their claim of confidentiality, pursuant 
Sec.  201.6 of this chapter and Sec.  210.4 of this subpart for any 
proposed redactions that parties may submit to the Commission or the 
administrative law judge for the preparation of any public version.

0
7. Revise Sec.  210.6 to read as follows:


Sec.  210.6  Computation of time, additional hearings, postponements, 
continuances, and extensions of time.

    (a) Unless the Commission, the administrative law judge, or this or 
another section of this part specifically provides otherwise, the 
computation of time and the granting of additional hearings, 
postponements, continuances, and extensions of time shall be in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  201.14 and 201.16(d) and (e) of this 
chapter.
    (b) Whenever a party has the right or is required to perform some 
act or to take some action within a prescribed period after service of 
a document upon it, and the document was served by mail, the deadline 
shall be computed by adding to the end of the prescribed period the 
additional time allotted under Sec.  201.16(d), unless the Commission, 
the administrative law judge, or another section of this part 
specifically provides otherwise.
    (c) Whenever a party has the right or is required to perform some 
act or to take some action within a prescribed period after service of 
a Commission document upon it, and the document was served by express 
delivery, the deadline shall be computed by adding to the end of the 
prescribed period the additional time allotted under Sec.  201.16(e), 
unless the Commission, the administrative law judge, or another section 
of this part specifically provides otherwise.

0
8. Amend Sec.  210.7 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  210.7  Service of process and other documents; publication of 
notices.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 23481]]

    (2) The service of all initial determinations as defined in Sec.  
210.42, all cease and desist orders as set forth in Sec.  210.50(a)(1), 
and all documents containing confidential business information as 
defined in Sec.  201.6(a), issued by or on behalf of the Commission or 
the administrative law judge on a private party, shall be effected by 
serving a copy of the document by express delivery, as defined in Sec.  
201.16(e), on the person to be served, on a member of the partnership 
to be served, on the president, secretary, other executive officer, or 
member of the board of directors of the corporation, association, or 
other organization to be served, or, if an attorney represents any of 
the above in connection with an investigation under this subtitle, by 
serving a copy by express delivery on such attorney.
* * * * *
    (c) Publication of notices. (1) Notice of action by the Commission 
or an administrative law judge will be published in the Federal 
Register only as specifically provided in Sec.  201.10, paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section, by another section in this chapter, or by order 
of an administrative law judge or the Commission.
    (2) When an administrative law judge or the Commission determines 
to amend or supplement a notice published in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, notice of the amendment will be published in 
the Federal Register.

0
9. Amend Sec.  210.8 by:
0
a. Adding a sentence after the first sentence of paragraph (b) 
introductory text;
0
b. Adding a sentence after the fourth sentence of paragraph (c)(1) 
introductory text; and
0
c. Adding a second sentence to paragraph (c)(2).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  210.8  Commencement of preinstitution proceedings.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * If the complainant files a confidential version of its 
submission on public interest, it shall file a public version of the 
submission no later than one business day after the deadline for filing 
the submission. * * *
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * * If a member of the public or proposed respondent files a 
confidential version of its submission, it shall file a public version 
of the submission no later than one business day after the deadline for 
filing the submission. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) * * * If the complainant files a confidential version of its 
submission, it shall file a public version of the submission no later 
than one business day after the deadline for filing the submission.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Pleadings

0
10. Amend Sec.  210.12 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(6)(i) introductory 
text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(11); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (a)(12).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  210.12  The complaint.

    (a) Contents of the complaint. In addition to conforming with the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  210.4 and 210.5 of this part, the complaint 
shall--
* * * * *
    (6)(i) If the complaint alleges a violation of section 337 based on 
infringement of a U.S. patent, or a federally registered copyright, 
trademark, mask work, or vessel hull design, under section 337(a)(1) 
(B), (C), (D), or (E) of the Tariff Act of 1930, include a statement as 
to whether an alleged domestic industry exists or is in the process of 
being established as defined in section 337(a)(2), and include a 
detailed description of the relevant domestic industry as defined in 
section 337(a)(3) that allegedly exists or is in the process of being 
established (i.e., for the former, facts showing significant/
substantial investment and employment, and for the latter, facts 
showing complainant is actively engaged in the steps leading to the 
exploitation of its intellectual property rights, and that there is a 
significant likelihood that an industry will be established in the 
future), and including the relevant operations of any licensees.* * *
* * * * *
    (ii) If the complaint alleges a violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 based on unfair methods of competition and unfair 
acts in the importation or sale of articles in the United States that 
have the threat or effect of destroying or substantially injuring an 
industry in the United States or preventing the establishment of such 
an industry under section 337(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii), include a detailed 
statement as to whether an alleged domestic industry exists or is in 
the process of being established (i.e., for the latter, facts showing 
that there is a significant likelihood that an industry will be 
established in the future), and include a detailed description of the 
domestic industry affected, including the relevant operations of any 
licensees; or
* * * * *
    (11) Contain a request for relief, including a statement as to 
whether a limited exclusion order, general exclusion order, and/or 
cease and desist orders are being requested, and if temporary relief is 
requested under section 337(e) and/or (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, a 
motion for such relief shall accompany the complaint as provided in 
Sec.  210.52(a) or may follow the complaint as provided in Sec.  
210.53(a).
    (12) Contain a clear statement in plain English of the category of 
products accused. For example, the caption of the investigation might 
refer to ``certain electronic devices,'' but the complaint would 
provide a further statement to identify the type of products involved 
in plain English such as mobile devices, tablets, or computers.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  210.13 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  210.13  The response.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * In addition to conforming to the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  210.4 and 210.5 of this part, each response shall be under 
oath and signed by respondent or his duly authorized officer, attorney, 
or agent with the name, address, and telephone number of the respondent 
and any such officer, attorney, or agent given on the first page of the 
response.* * *
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  210.14 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a);
0
c. Adding a sentence after the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (g).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  210.14  Amendments to pleadings and notice; supplemental 
submissions; counterclaims; consolidation of investigations.

    (a) * * * If, prior to institution, the complainant seeks to amend 
a complaint to add a respondent or to assert an additional unfair act 
not in the original complaint, including asserting a new patent or 
patent claim, then the complaint shall be treated as if it had been 
filed on the date the amendment is filed for purposes of Sec. Sec.  
210.8(b) and (c), 210.9, and 210.10(a).
    (b) * * *

[[Page 23482]]

    (1) * * * A motion to amend the complaint and notice of 
investigation to name an additional respondent after institution shall 
be served on the proposed respondent.* * *
* * * * *
    (g) Consolidation of investigations. The Commission may consolidate 
two or more investigations. If the investigations are currently before 
the same presiding administrative law judge, he or she may consolidate 
the investigations. The investigation number in the caption of the 
consolidated investigation will include the investigation numbers of 
the investigations being consolidated. The investigation number in 
which the matter will be proceeding (the lead investigation) will be 
the first investigation number named in the consolidated caption.

Subpart D--Motions


Sec.  210.15  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  210.15 by removing the second sentence in paragraph 
(a)(2).

0
14. Amend Sec.  210.16 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as (b)(4);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Adding subject headings to paragraphs (c)(1) and (2); and
0
d. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (c)(2).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  210.16  Default.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1)(i) If a respondent has failed to respond or appear in the 
manner described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a party may file 
a motion for, or the administrative law judge may issue upon his own 
initiative, an order directing respondent to show cause why it should 
not be found in default.
    (ii) If the respondent fails to make the necessary showing pursuant 
to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the administrative law judge 
shall issue an initial determination finding the respondent in default. 
An administrative law judge's decision denying a motion for a finding 
of default under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be in the form 
of an order.
* * * * *
    (3) If a proposed respondent has not filed a response to the 
complaint and notice of investigation pursuant to Sec.  210.13 or Sec.  
210.59(c) of this chapter, the proposed respondent may file a notice of 
intent to default under this section. The filing of a notice of intent 
to default does not require the administrative law judge to issue the 
show-cause order of paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The 
administrative law judge shall issue an initial determination finding 
the proposed respondent in default upon the filing of a notice of 
intent to default. Such default will be treated in the same manner as 
any default under this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Types of relief available. * * *
    (2) General exclusion orders. * * * The Commission may issue a 
general exclusion order pursuant to section 337(g)(2) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, regardless of the source or importer of the articles 
concerned, provided that a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 is established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence 
and that the other requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2) are satisfied, 
and only after considering the aforementioned public interest factors 
and the requirements of Sec.  210.50(c).

0
15. Amend Sec.  210.17 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraph (f);
0
c. Removing paragraph (g);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (h) as paragraph (g); and
0
e. Adding new paragraph (h).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  210.17  Other failure to act and default.

* * * * *
    (f) Failure to respond to a petition for review of an initial 
determination, a petition for reconsideration of an initial 
determination, or an application for interlocutory review of an 
administrative law judge's order; and
* * * * *
    (h) Default by notice. If a respondent has filed a response to the 
complaint or notice of investigation under Sec.  210.13 of this 
chapter, the respondent may still file a notice of intent to default 
with the presiding administrative law judge at any time before the 
filing of the final initial determination. The administrative law judge 
shall issue an initial determination finding the respondent in default 
upon the filing of a notice of intent to default. Such default will be 
treated in the same manner as any other failure to act under this 
section. The filing of a notice of intent to default does not require 
the administrative law judge to issue an order to show cause as to why 
the respondent should not be found in default.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  210.21 by:
0
a. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Adding a sentence after the third sentence of paragraph (a)(1);
0
c. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1);
0
d. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(1);
0
e. Adding four sentences to the end of paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
f. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(ii);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(3); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  210.21  Termination of investigations.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * A motion for termination of an investigation based on 
withdrawal of the complaint, or for good cause, shall contain a 
statement that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or 
implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the 
investigation, or if there are any agreements concerning the subject 
matter of the investigation, all such agreements shall be identified, 
and if written, a copy shall be filed with the Commission along with 
the motion. * * * On motion for good cause shown, the administrative 
law judge may limit service of the agreements to the settling parties 
and the Commission investigative attorney. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * The motion for termination by settlement shall contain 
copies of the licensing or other settlement agreements, any 
supplemental agreements, any documents referenced in the motion or 
attached agreements, and a statement that there are no other 
agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties 
concerning the subject matter of the investigation. * * * On motion for 
good cause shown, the administrative law judge may limit the service of 
the agreements to the settling parties and the Commission investigative 
attorney.
* * * * *
    (c) * * * A motion for termination by consent order shall contain 
copies of any licensing or other settlement agreement, any supplemental 
agreements, and a statement that there are no other agreements, written 
or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject 
matter of the investigation. If the licensing or other settlement 
agreement contains confidential business information

[[Page 23483]]

within the meaning of Sec.  201.6(a) of this chapter, a copy of the 
agreement with such information deleted shall accompany the motion. On 
motion for good cause shown, the administrative law judge may limit 
service of the agreements to the settling parties and the Commission 
investigative attorney. If there are no additional agreements, the 
moving parties shall certify that there are no additional agreements.
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * * The stipulation shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Contents of consent order stipulation. (i) Every consent order 
stipulation shall contain, in addition to the proposed consent order, 
the following:
    (A) An admission of all jurisdictional facts;
    (B) A statement identifying the asserted patent claims, copyright, 
trademark, mask work, boat hull design, or unfair trade practice, and 
whether the stipulation calls for cessation of importation, 
distribution, sale, or other transfers (other than exportation) of 
subject articles in the United States and/or specific terms relating to 
the disposition of existing U.S. inventories of subject articles.
    (C) An express waiver of all rights to seek judicial review or 
otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the consent order;
    (D) A statement that the signatories to the consent order 
stipulation will cooperate with and will not seek to impede by 
litigation or other means the Commission's efforts to gather 
information under subpart I of this part;
    (E) A statement that the enforcement, modification, and revocation 
of the consent order will be carried out pursuant to subpart I of this 
part, incorporating by reference the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure;
    (F) A statement that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes 
only and does not constitute admission by any respondent that an unfair 
act has been committed, if applicable; and
    (G) A statement that the consent order shall have the same force 
and effect and may be enforced, modified, or revoked in the same manner 
as is provided in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and this part 
for other Commission actions, and the Commission may require periodic 
compliance reports pursuant to subpart I of this part to be submitted 
by the person entering into the consent order stipulation.
    (ii) In the case of an intellectual property-based investigation, 
the consent order stipulation shall also contain--
    (A) A statement that the consent order shall not apply with respect 
to any claim of any intellectual property right that has expired or 
been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the Commission or 
a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, provided that such finding 
or judgment has become final and nonreviewable;
    (B) A statement that each signatory to the stipulation who was a 
respondent in the investigation will not seek to challenge the validity 
of the intellectual property right(s), in any administrative or 
judicial proceeding to enforce the consent order
    (4) Contents of consent order. The Commission will not issue 
consent orders with terms beyond those provided for in this section, 
and will not issue consent orders that are inconsistent with this 
section. The consent order shall contain:
    (i) A statement of the identity of complainant, the respondent, and 
the subject articles, and a statement of any allegation in the 
complaint that the respondents sell for importation, import, or sell 
after importation the subject articles in violation of section 337 by 
reason of asserted patent claims, copyright, trademark, mask work, boat 
hull design, or unfair trade practice;
    (ii) A statement that the respondents have executed a consent order 
stipulation (but the consent order shall not contain the terms of the 
stipulation);
    (iii) A statement that the respondent shall not sell for 
importation, import, or sell after importation the subject articles, 
directly or indirectly, and shall not aid, abet, encourage, participate 
in, or induce the sale for importation, the importation, or the sale 
after importation except under consent, license from the complainant, 
or to the extent permitted by the settlement agreement between 
complainant and respondent;
    (iv) A statement, if applicable, regarding the disposition of 
existing U.S. inventories of the subject articles.
    (v) A statement, if applicable, whether the respondent would be 
ordered to cease and desist from importing and distributing articles 
covered by the asserted patent claims, copyright, trademark, mask work, 
boat hull design, or unfair trade practice;
    (vi) A statement that respondent shall be precluded from seeking 
judicial review or otherwise challenging or contesting the validity of 
the Consent Order;
    (vii) A statement that respondent shall cooperate with and shall 
not seek to impede by litigation or other means the Commission's 
efforts to gather information under subpart I of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210;
    (viii) A statement that Respondent and its officers, directors, 
employees, agents, and any entity or individual acting on its behalf 
and with its authority shall not seek to challenge the validity or 
enforceability of the claims of the asserted patent claims, copyright, 
trademark, mask work, boat hull design, or unfair trade practice in any 
administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order;
    (ix) A statement that when the patent, copyright, trademark, mask 
work, boat hull design, or unfair trade practice expires the Consent 
Order shall become null and void as to such;
    (x) A statement that if any claim of the patent, copyright, 
trademark, mask work, boat hull design, or other unfair trade practice 
is held invalid or unenforceable by a court or agency of competent 
jurisdiction or as to any articles that has been found or adjudicated 
not to infringe the asserted right in a final decision, no longer 
subject to appeal, this Consent Order shall become null and void as to 
such invalid or unenforceable claim; and
    (xi) A statement that the investigation is hereby terminated with 
respect to the respondent; provided, however, that enforcement, 
modification, or revocation of the Consent Order shall be carried out 
pursuant to Subpart I of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
    (5) Effect, interpretation, and reporting. The consent order shall 
have the same force and effect and may be enforced, modified, or 
revoked in the same manner as is provided in section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 and this part for other Commission actions. The Commission 
will not enforce consent order terms beyond those provided for in this 
section. The Commission may require periodic compliance reports 
pursuant to subpart I of this part to be submitted by the person 
entering into the consent order stipulation.
* * * * *

Subpart E--Discovery and Compulsory Process

0
17. Amend Sec.  210.28 by:
0
a. Adding three sentences at the end of paragraph (a); and
0
b. Adding a sentence after the second sentence of paragraph (c).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  210.28  Depositions.

    (a) * * * Without stipulation of the parties, the complainants as a 
group

[[Page 23484]]

may take a maximum of five fact depositions per respondent or no more 
than 20 fact depositions whichever is greater, the respondents as a 
group may take a maximum of 20 fact depositions total, and if the 
Commission investigative attorney is a party, he or she may take a 
maximum of 10 fact depositions and is permitted to participate in all 
depositions taken by any parties in the investigation. Each notice for 
a corporation to designate deponents only counts as one deposition and 
includes all corporate representatives so designated to respond, and 
related respondents are treated as one respondent for purposes of 
determining the number of depositions. The presiding administrative law 
judge may increase the number of depositions on written motion for good 
cause shown.
* * * * *
    (c) * * * A party upon whom a notice of deposition is served may 
make objections to a notice of deposition and state the reasons 
therefor within ten days of service of the notice of deposition.* * *
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  210.29 by adding three sentences to the end of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.29  Interrogatories.

    (a) * * * Absent stipulation of the parties, any party may serve 
upon any other party written interrogatories not exceeding 175 in 
number including all discrete subparts. Related respondents are treated 
as one entity. The presiding administrative law judge may increase the 
number of interrogatories on written motion for good cause shown.
* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  210.34 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  210.34  Protective orders; reporting requirements; sanctions and 
other actions.

* * * * *
    (b) Unauthorized disclosure, loss, or theft of information. If 
confidential business information submitted in accordance with the 
terms of a protective order is disclosed to any person other than in a 
manner authorized by the protective order, lost, or stolen, the party 
responsible for the disclosure, or subject to the loss or theft, must 
immediately bring all pertinent facts relating to such incident to the 
attention of the submitter of the information and the administrative 
law judge or the Commission, and, without prejudice to other rights and 
remedies of the submitter of the information, make every effort to 
prevent further mishandling of such information by the party or the 
recipient of such information.
    (c) Violation of protective order. (1) The issue of whether 
sanctions should be imposed may be raised on a motion by a party, the 
administrative law judge's own motion, or the Commission's own 
initiative in accordance with Sec.  210.25(a)(2). Parties, including 
the party that identifies an alleged breach or makes a motion for 
sanctions, and the Commission shall treat the identity of the alleged 
breacher as confidential business information unless the Commission 
issues a public sanction. The identity of the alleged breacher means 
the name of any individual against whom allegations are made. The 
Commission or administrative law judge shall allow the parties to make 
written submissions and, if warranted, to present oral argument bearing 
on the issues of violation of a protective order and sanctions 
therefor.
    (2) If the breach occurs while the investigation is before an 
administrative law judge, any determination on sanctions of the type 
enumerated in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section shall 
be in the form of a recommended determination. The Commission may then 
consider both the recommended determination and any related orders in 
making a determination on sanctions. When the motion is addressed to 
the administrative law judge for sanctions of the type enumerated in 
paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section, he shall grant or deny a motion by 
issuing an order.
    (3) Any individual who has agreed to be bound by the terms of a 
protective order issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and 
who is determined to have violated the terms of the protective order, 
may be subject to one or more of the following:
    (i) An official reprimand by the Commission;
    (ii) Disqualification from or limitation of further participation 
in a pending investigation;
    (iii) Temporary or permanent disqualification from practicing in 
any capacity before the Commission pursuant to Sec.  201.15(a) of this 
chapter;
    (iv) Referral of the facts underlying the violation to the 
appropriate licensing authority in the jurisdiction in which the 
individual is licensed to practice;
    (v) Sanctions of the sort enumerated in Sec.  210.33(b), or such 
other action as may be appropriate.
* * * * *

Subpart G--Determinations and Actions Taken

0
20. Amend Sec.  210.42 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and revising 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.42  Initial determinations.

    (a)(1)(i) On issues concerning violation of section 337. Unless 
otherwise ordered by the Commission, the administrative law judge shall 
certify the record to the Commission and shall file an initial 
determination on whether there is a violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 in an original investigation no later than 4 months 
before the target date set pursuant to Sec.  210.51(a)(1).
* * * * *
    (c) On other matters. (1) The administrative law judge shall grant 
the following types of motions by issuing an initial determination or 
shall deny them by issuing an order: a motion to amend the complaint or 
notice of investigation pursuant to Sec.  210.14(b); a motion for a 
finding of default pursuant to Sec. Sec.  210.16 and 210.17; a motion 
for summary determination pursuant to Sec.  210.18; a motion for 
intervention pursuant to Sec.  210.19; a motion for termination 
pursuant to Sec.  210.21; a motion to suspend an investigation pursuant 
to Sec.  210.23; or a motion to set a target date for an original 
investigation exceeding 16 months pursuant to Sec.  210.51(a)(1); or a 
motion to set a target date for a formal enforcement proceeding 
exceeding 12 months pursuant to Sec.  210.51(a)(2).
    (2) The administrative law judge shall grant or deny the following 
types of motions by issuing an initial determination: a motion for 
forfeiture or return of respondents' bonds pursuant to Sec.  210.50(d) 
or a motion for forfeiture or return of a complainant's temporary 
relief bond pursuant to Sec.  210.70.
* * * * *

0
21. Amend Sec.  210.43 by:
0
a. Revising the first and third sentences of paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Removing the Note to Paragraph (b)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  210.43  Petitions for review of initial determinations on matters 
other than temporary relief.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, any 
party to an investigation may request Commission review of an initial 
determination issued under Sec.  210.42(a)(1) or (c), Sec.  
210.50(d)(3), Sec.  210.70(c), or Sec.  210.75(b)(3) by filing a 
petition with

[[Page 23485]]

the Secretary.* * * A petition for review of an initial determination 
issued under Sec.  210.42(c) that terminates the investigation in its 
entirety on summary determination, or an initial determination issued 
under Sec.  210.50(d)(3), Sec.  210.70(c) or Sec.  210.75(b)(3), must 
be filed within 10 days after service of the initial determination. * * 
*
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The petition for review must set forth a concise statement of 
the facts material to the consideration of the stated issues, and must 
present a concise argument providing the reasons that review by the 
Commission is necessary or appropriate to resolve an important issue of 
fact, law, or policy. If a petition filed under this paragraph exceeds 
50 pages in length, it must be accompanied by a summary of the petition 
not to exceed ten pages. Petitions for review may not exceed 100 pages 
in length, exclusive of the summary and any exhibits. Petitions for 
review may not incorporate statements, issues, or arguments by 
reference. Any issue not raised in a petition for review will be deemed 
to have been abandoned by the petitioning party and may be disregarded 
by the Commission in reviewing the initial determination (unless the 
Commission chooses to review the issue on its own initiative under 
Sec.  210.44), and any argument not relied on in a petition for review 
will be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disregarded by the 
Commission.
* * * * *
    (c) Responses to the petition. Any party may file a response within 
eight (8) days after service of a petition of a final initial 
determination under Sec.  210.42(a)(1), and within five (5) business 
days after service of all other types of petitions, except that a party 
who has been found to be in default may not file a response to any 
issue as to which the party has defaulted. If a response to a petition 
for review filed under this paragraph exceeds 50 pages in length, it 
must be accompanied by a summary of the response not to exceed ten 
pages. Responses to petitions for review may not exceed 100 pages in 
length, exclusive of the summary and any exhibits. Responses to 
petitions for review may not incorporate statements, issues, or 
arguments by reference. Any argument not relied on in a response will 
be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disregarded by the 
Commission.
* * * * *

0
22. Amend Sec.  210.50 by:
0
a. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (a)(4) introductory text;
0
b. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a)(4)(iii); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  210.50  Commission action, the public interest, and bonding by 
respondents.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) * * * Submissions by the parties under this paragraph in 
response to the recommended determination are limited to 5 pages, 
inclusive of attachments.
* * * * *
    (iii) * * * If a party, interested person, or agency files a 
confidential version of its submission, it shall file a public version 
of the submission no later than one business day after the deadline for 
filing the submission.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1)(i) If one or more respondents posts a bond pursuant to 19 
U.S.C. 1337(e)(1) or 1337(j)(3), proceedings to determine whether a 
respondent's bond should be forfeited to a complainant in whole or part 
may be initiated upon the filing of a motion, addressed to the 
administrative law judge who last presided over the investigation, by a 
complainant within 90 days after the expiration of the period of 
Presidential review under 19 U.S.C. 1337(j), or if an appeal is taken 
from the determination of the Commission, within 30 days after the 
resolution of the appeal. If that administrative law judge is no longer 
employed by the Commission, the motion shall be addressed to the chief 
administrative law judge.
    (ii) A respondent may file a motion addressed to the administrative 
law judge who last presided over the investigation for the return of 
its bond within 90 days after the expiration of the Presidential review 
period under 19 U.S.C. 1337(j), or if an appeal is taken from the 
determination of the Commission, within 30 days after the resolution of 
the appeal. If that administrative law judge is no longer employed by 
the Commission, the motion shall be addressed to the chief 
administrative law judge.
* * * * *

0
23. Amend Sec.  210.51 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.51  Period for concluding investigation.

    (a) Permanent relief. Within 45 days after institution of an 
original investigation on whether there is a violation of section 337, 
or an investigation which is a formal enforcement proceeding, the 
administrative law judge shall issue an order setting a target date for 
completion of the investigation. After the target date has been set, it 
can be modified by the administrative law judge for good cause shown 
before the investigation is certified to the Commission or by the 
Commission after the investigation is certified to the Commission.
    (1) Original investigations. If the target date does not exceed 16 
months from the date of institution of an original investigation, the 
order of the administrative law judge shall be final and not subject to 
interlocutory review. If the target date exceeds 16 months, the order 
of the administrative law judge shall constitute an initial 
determination. Any extension of the target date beyond 16 months, 
before the investigation is certified to the Commission, shall be by 
initial determination.
    (2) Formal enforcement proceedings. If the target date does not 
exceed 12 months from the date of institution of the formal enforcement 
proceeding, the order of the administrative law judge shall be final 
and not subject to interlocutory review. If the target date exceeds 12 
months, the order of the administrative law judge shall constitute an 
initial determination. Any extension of the target date beyond 12 
months, before the formal enforcement proceeding is certified to the 
Commission, shall be by initial determination.
* * * * *

Subpart H--Temporary Relief

0
24. Amend Sec.  210.54 by revising the first sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  210.54  Service of motion by the complainant.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  210.11 regarding service of 
the complaint by the Commission upon institution of an investigation, 
on the day the complainant files a complaint and motion for temporary 
relief, if any, with the Commission (see Sec.  210.8(a)(1) and (a)(2) 
of subpart B of this part), the complainant must serve non-confidential 
copies of both documents (as well as non-confidential copies of all 
materials or documents attached thereto) on all proposed respondents 
and on the embassy in Washington, DC of the country in which each 
proposed respondent is located as indicated in the Complaint. * * *
0
25. Amend Sec.  210.56 in paragraph (a) by revising the first sentence 
of the

[[Page 23486]]

second undesignated paragraph to read as follows:


Sec.  210.56  Notice accompanying service copies.

    (a) * * *
    Upon receipt of the complaint, the Commission will examine the 
complaint for sufficiency and compliance with 19 CFR 210.4, 210.5, 
210.8, and 210.12. * * *
* * * * *

0
26. Amend Sec.  210.58 by revising the third sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  210.58  Provisional acceptance of the motion.

    * * * Before the Commission determines whether to provisionally 
accept a motion for temporary relief, the motion will be examined for 
sufficiency and compliance with Sec. Sec.  210.52, 210.53(a) (if 
applicable), 210.54 through 210.56, as well as Sec. Sec.  210.4 and 
210.5. * * *
0
27. Amend Sec.  210.59 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.59  Response to the motion and the complaint.

* * * * *
    (b) The response must comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
210.4 and 210.5 of this part, and shall contain the following 
information:
* * * * *
    (c) Each response to the motion for temporary relief must also be 
accompanied by a response to the complaint and notice of investigation. 
Responses to the complaint and notice of investigation must comply with 
Sec. Sec.  210.4 and 210.5 of this part, and any protective order 
issued by the administrative law judge under Sec.  210.34 of this part.

0
28. Amend Sec.  210.60 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Designating the existing text as paragraph (a) and revising its 
first two sentences; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  210.60  Designating the temporary relief phase of an 
investigation more complicated for the purpose of adjudicating a motion 
for temporary relief.

    (a) At the time the Commission determines to institute an 
investigation and provisionally accepts a motion for temporary relief 
pursuant to Sec.  210.58, or at any time thereafter, the Commission may 
designate the temporary relief phase of an investigation ``more 
complicated'' pursuant to Sec.  210.60(b) for the purpose of obtaining 
up to 60 additional days to adjudicate the motion for temporary relief. 
In the alternative, after the motion for temporary relief is referred 
to the administrative law judge for an initial determination under 
Sec.  210.66(a), the administrative law judge may issue an order, sua 
sponte or on motion, designating the temporary relief phase of the 
investigation ``more complicated'' for the purpose of obtaining 
additional time to adjudicate the motion for temporary relief. * * *
    (b) A temporary relief phase is designated more complicated owing 
to the subject matter, difficulty in obtaining information, the large 
number of parties involved, or other significant factors.

Subpart I--Enforcement Procedures and Advisory Opinions

0
29. Amend Sec.  210.75 by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph 
(b)(1) and revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.75  Proceedings to enforce exclusion orders, cease and desist 
orders, consent orders, and other Commission orders.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * These proceedings are authorized under section 337(b) as 
investigations on whether there is a violation of section 337 in the 
same manner as original investigations, and are conducted in accordance 
with the laws for original investigations as set forth in section 1337 
of title 19 and sections 554, 555, 556, 557, and 702 of title 5 of the 
United States Code and the rules of this part.
* * * * *
    (3) The Commission, in the course of a formal enforcement 
proceeding under this section, may hold a public hearing and afford the 
parties to the enforcement proceeding the opportunity to appear and be 
heard. The Commission may delegate the hearing to the chief 
administrative law judge for designation of a presiding administrative 
law judge, who shall certify an initial determination to the 
Commission. A presiding administrative law judge shall certify the 
record and issue the enforcement initial determination to the 
Commission no later than three months before the target date for 
completion of a formal enforcement proceeding. Parties may file 
petitions for review, and responses thereto, in accordance with Sec.  
210.43 of this part. The enforcement initial determination shall become 
the determination of the Commission 45 days after the date of service 
of the enforcement initial determination, unless the Commission, within 
45 days after the date of such service, shall have ordered review of 
the enforcement initial determination on certain issues therein, or by 
order shall have changed the effective date of the enforcement initial 
determination.
* * * * *

0
30. Amend Sec.  210.76 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  210.76  Modification or rescission of exclusion orders, cease and 
desist orders, and consent orders.

* * * * *
    (c) Comments. Parties may submit comments on the recommended 
determination within 10 days from the service of the recommended 
determination. Parties may submit responses thereto within 5 business 
days from service of any comments.

0
31. Revise appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 210--Adjudication and Enforcement

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Commission deadline for
                                         Petitions for review    Response to petitions    determining whether to
  Initial determination concerning:              due:                     due:              review the initial
                                                                                              determination:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Violation Sec.   210.42(a)(1).....  12 days from service of  8 days from service of   60 days from service of
                                        the initial              any petition.            the initial
                                        determination.                                    determination (on
                                                                                          private parties).
2. Summary initial determination that  10 days from service of  5 business days from     45 days from service of
 would terminate the investigation if   the initial              service of any           the initial
 it became the Commission's final       determination.           petition.                determination (on
 determination Sec.   210.42(c).                                                          private parties).

[[Page 23487]]

 
3. Other matters Sec.   210.42(c)....  5 business days from     5 business days from     30 days from service of
                                        service of the initial   service of any           the initial
                                        determination.           petition.                determination (on
                                                                                          private parties).
4. Forfeiture or return of             10 days from service of  5 business days from     45 days from service of
 respondents' bond Sec.                 the initial              service of any           the initial
 210.50(d)(3).                          determination.           petition.                determination (on
                                                                                          private parties).
5. Forfeiture or return of             10 days from service of  5 business days from     45 days from service of
 complainant's temporary relief bond    the initial              service of any           the initial
 Sec.   210.70(c).                      determination.           petition.                determination (on
                                                                                          private parties).
6. Formal enforcement proceedings      10 days from service of  5 business days from     45 days from service of
 Sec.   210.75(b).                      the enforcement          service of any           the enforcement
                                        initial determination.   petition.                initial determination
                                                                                          (on private parties).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
32. Add appendix B to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 210-Adjudication and Enforcement

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommended determination                             Response to
           concerning:               Comments due:       comments due:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification or Rescission Sec.   10 days from        5 business days
  210.76(a)(1).                    service of the      from service of
                                   recommended         any comments.
                                   determination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Issued: April 11, 2013.

    By Order of the Commission.

Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-08931 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P