SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The preamble below is designed to assist readers in understanding the proposed amendments to the Commission Rules. This preamble provides background information, a regulatory analysis of the proposed amendments, an explanation of the proposed amendments to part 210, and a description of the proposed amendments to the rules. The Commission invites the public to comment on the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules.

If the Commission decides to proceed with this rulemaking after reviewing the comments filed in response to this proposed rule, the proposed rule revisions will be promulgated in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. 553) and will be codified in 19 CFR part 210.

Background

Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking seeks to improve provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure by formalizing the disclosure of information by parties and intervenors in investigations conducted under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”) regarding entities that have an ownership and/or financial interest in the investigations. Accordingly, the Commission proposes amendments to its rules governing section 337 proceedings.

This rulemaking was undertaken to address concerns that have arisen in Commission practice. Many Federal courts have real-party-in-interest and litigation-funding disclosure requirements to promote transparency and for conflicts. The Commission does not currently have such rules. Accordingly, the Commission endeavors to implement such rules. The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to require disclosure of entities that have a financial interest in or exert control with respect to the parties that appear before the Commission in section 337 investigations and ancillary proceedings. The purpose of this disclosure requirement is to (a) facilitate evaluation of potential conflicts for the Commissioners, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges, and Commission employees, for example, by clarifying whether a party is owned or controlled by another entity or whether an entity other than the party has control over the party's participation in the investigation; (b) provide early clarity about entities whose rights are at issue in the investigation; and (c) promote transparency to facilitate settlement and to bring relevant issues to the Commission's attention. The Commission notes that nothing in this proposed amendment is meant to prohibit the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges from requesting additional information from the parties or from enforcing this rule and their ground rules against the parties.

The Commission invites the public to comment on the proposed rule amendments. In any comments, please consider addressing whether the language of the proposed amendments is sufficiently clear for users to understand for compliance and enforcement purposes, in addition to any other comments you wish to make on the proposed amendments. Please also consider addressing how the proposed amendments could be improved and offering specific constructive alternatives and explanations, where appropriate. Further, the Commission encourages members of the public to comment on (1) the benefits to parties, the public, and the Commission in having a disclosure rule like the one proposed; (2) any undue burden the proposed amendments would have on parties; and (3) ways to mitigate those burdens while achieving the objectives of the proposed amendments. In addition, the Commission welcomes comments on the effect this rule is likely to have in section 337 investigations, including whether the proposed amendments are likely to affect certain entities or circumstances more so than others. Moreover, because some provisions in the proposed amendments are similar to disclosure requirements in Federal district and appellate court rules and other Federal/State judicial or administrative forums, the Commission is interested in comments concerning the relevance of any variances between the proposed amendments and similar provisions in those rules.

The Commission draws attention to the following aspects of proposed § 210.14a that commenters may wish to address among other issues: (1) whether proposed § 210.14a(a)(1) should require disclosure of entities owning a party's stock only after a particular percentage of ownership is reached; (2) whether proposed § 210.14a(a)(2) should apply to respondents and intervenors or just to ( printed page 23192) complainants and whether there is enough clarity about entities that have a legal right to bring a section 337 investigation particularly for claims under section 337(a)(1)(A) to be able to comply; (3) whether definitions of certain terms would be useful and any proposals for such definitions; (4) whether the disclosures required should differ for investigations under section 337(a)(1)(A) as opposed to 337(a)(1)(B)-(E); (5) whether disclosure of funding or necessary approval in related litigation is relevant and should be included in the disclosures required under proposed paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section; and (6) whether there are other possible financial interests in section 337 investigations that are not required to be disclosed under proposed § 210.14(a)(1) through (3) that should also be subject to disclosure, and if so, details regarding the nature of such interests and how to define both the nature and holders of such interests. The Commission notes that it applied for and received a deviation from the Office of the Federal Register to use a number with an alpha character for § 210.14a.

The current notice of proposed rulemaking is consistent with the Commission's plan to ensure that the Commission's rules are effective, as detailed in the Commission's Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, published February 14, 2012 (77 FR 8114). This plan was issued in response to Executive Order 13579 of July 11, 2011, and established a process under which the Commission will periodically review its significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory objectives. This process includes a general review of existing regulations in 19 CFR part 210.

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 invites the public to comment on these proposed rules consistent with its ordinary practice. This practice entails the following steps: (1) publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) solicitation of public comments on the proposed amendments; (3) Commission review of public comments on the proposed amendments; and (4) publication of final amendments at least thirty (30) days prior to their effective date.

Regulatory Analysis of Proposed Amendments to the Commission's Rules

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14215 (90 FR 10447, Feb. 18, 2025), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order. OMB and the Commission have determined that the proposed rules do not meet the criteria described in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as amended, and thus do not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of the Executive Order.

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025) requires agencies to identify ten (10) existing regulations for repeal for each new regulation that they promulgate. Implementation guidance for Executive Order 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) clarifies that “E.O. 14192 regulatory actions” are limited to “significant regulatory actions” (as defined in Executive Order 12866) and significant guidance documents that impose total costs greater than zero. As noted above, OMB and the Commission have determined that the proposed rules do not constitute a significant regulatory action.

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

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

No actions are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) because the proposed 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 proposed rules are not major rules as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Moreover, they are exempt from the reporting requirements of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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.

These proposed rules do not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Part 210—Adjudication and Enforcement

Subpart B—Commencement of Preinstitution Proceedings and Investigations

Section 210.8

The Commission proposes to amend § 210.8 to indicate that the complainant must file, concurrently with the complaint, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. The proposed rule also allows related complainants to file a single disclosure statement.

Subpart C—Pleadings

Section 210.13

The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.13 to indicate that each respondent must file, concurrently with its response, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. The proposed rule also allows related respondents to file a single disclosure statement.

Section 210.14a

Section 210.14a is a new rule that provides for certain disclosures by the parties in section 337 proceedings. The proposed rule adds several requirements, which apply to each nongovernment party to a section 337 investigation and each nongovernment party who seeks to intervene in a section 337 investigation. The proposed rule requires that these parties file a disclosure statement with the Secretary. In the disclosure statement, each party must identify any parent corporation and any other entity, not including natural person(s), owning that party's stock. The disclosure is focused on corporate or similar entities that through ownership of the party's stock may have a financial interest in the outcome of the investigation; the disclosure does not focus on individual persons that may hold stock in the party so as to not require disclosure of every individual shareholder. Each party must also identify any person or entity that has ( printed page 23193) the legal right to bring a section 337 investigation based on the unfair act or acts asserted in the complaint besides complainant. The Commission notes that the person or entity that has the legal right to bring a section 337 complaint will depend on the unfair act(s) asserted in the complaint. By way of example, the person or entity that has the legal right to bring a section 337 in patent, trademark, and copyright investigations is the owner or exclusive licensee, whereas for trade secret investigations, the person or entity that has the legal right to bring a section 337 is the trade secret owner. In addition, each party must identify any person or entity, not including counsel representing the party in the investigation: (a) that provides funding specifically for the section 337 investigation, not including personal loan(s), bank loans, or insurance; or (b) whose approval is necessary for litigation decisions or settlement decisions in the section 337 investigation, and state the nature of the terms and conditions relating to that approval. The proposed section does not cover funding provided as part of a contingency fee agreement between the party and its counsel and therefore has excluded counsel representing the party from among the entities that must be disclosed pursuant to proposed § 210.14a. Whether the party is represented by counsel and if so, whom will otherwise be disclosed in the investigation. The proposed section does not cover banks or insurers that may provide loans or insurance to the party but does cover loans provided specifically for the investigation by entities other than banks.

The proposed rule further states that the disclosure statement shall include the identity, business address, and, if a legal entity, place of formation for each corporation, entity, or person identified. Finally, the proposed rule allows a party to state that there is no, and/or that they are not aware of any, such parent corporation or entity under paragraph (a)(1) and/or such person or entity under paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.

Subpart D—Motions

Section 210.19

The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.19 to indicate that the intervenor must file, concurrently with its motion to intervene, a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a. The proposed rule also allows related intervenors, who move to intervene together, to file a single disclosure statement.

Subpart I—Enforcement Procedures and Advisory Opinions

Section 210.75

The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.75 to indicate that a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a must be filed by the enforcement complainant, concurrently with the enforcement complainant, and by the other parties named in the notice of institution, concurrently with their responses. The proposed rule also allows related parties to file a single disclosure statement.

Section 210.76

The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.76 to indicate that a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a must be filed by the petitioner, concurrently with their petition to modify and/or rescind a remedial order, and by any responding party, concurrently with its response. The proposed rule also allows related parties to file a single disclosure statement.

Section 210.79

The Commission also proposes to amend § 210.79 to indicate that a separate disclosure statement pursuant to § 210.14a must be filed by the requester, concurrently with their request for an advisory proceeding, and by any responding party, concurrently with its response. The proposed rule also allows related parties to file a single disclosure statement.

Finally, the Commission proposes to change the term “10” to “ten (10).”

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the United States International Trade Commission proposes to amend 19 CFR part 210 as follows:

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

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

2. Amend § 210.8 by:

a. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e); and

b. Adding new paragraph (c).

The addition reads as follows:

3. Amend § 210.13 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

4. Add § 210.14a to read as follows:

5. Revise § 210.19 to read as follows:

6. Amend § 210.75 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

7. Amend § 210.76 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

8. Amend § 210.79 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

91 FR 23190