This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before October 27, 2000.
Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Norman A. Armstrong, Jr., FTC/S-2311, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2072.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46, and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 27, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/09/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.
Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 31/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) from The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Boeing's acquisition of certain assets of General Motors Corporation. The proposed Consent Agreement prohibits Boeing from providing systems engineering and technical assistance (“SETA”) services to the United States Department of Defense (“DoD”) for a certain classified program. The Start Printed Page 59429proposed Consent Agreement also prohibits Boeing's launch vehicle division from gaining access to any non-public information that Boeing's satellite division receives from competing launch vehicle suppliers when those competing suppliers launch Boeing's satellites. Similarly, the proposed Consent Agreement prohibits Boeing's satellite division from gaining access to any non-public information that Boeing's launch vehicle business receives from competing satellite suppliers. In addition, the proposed Consent Agreement requires Boeing to make available all necessary satellite interface information, which is used to make a satellite compatible with a launch vehicle, to all launch vehicle suppliers.
The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and any comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make final the proposed Decision Order.
Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement entered into on January 13, 2000, Boeing agreed to acquire certain assets of General Motors Corporation, including Hughes Space and Communications Company, Hughes Space and Communications International, Hughes Space and Communications International Service Company, Spectrolab, Inc., Hughes Electron Dynamics, Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company's 2.69% interest in ICO Global Communications Ltd., and Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company's 2% interest in Thuraya Satellite Telecommunications Private Joint Stock Company, for approximately $3.75 billion. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the transaction, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, in the following markets:
(1) A certain classified program for which Boeing is providing SETA services; 
(2) The research, development, manufacture, and sale of commercial geosynchronous earth orbit satellites;
(3) The research, development, manufacture, and sale of commercial medium earth orbit satellites;
(4) The research, development, manufacture, and sale of commercial low earth orbit satellites;
(5) The research, development, manufacture, and sale of government satellites; and
(6) The research, development, manufacture, and sale of launch vehicles.
The proposed Consent Agreement remedies the alleged violations in each market. First, Boeing is the sole supplier of SETA services to DoD for a certain classified program. Boeing provides these services to DoD under a classified contract identified for purposes of the Complaint as Contract 4208. Hughes is one of two competing contractors for the classified program for which Boeing is providing SETA services. Thus, as result of the proposed acquisition, Boeing would be both the provider of SETA services and a competing contractor for this classified program.
As a SETA contractor, Boeing must receive a great deal of competitively sensitive information, including detailed cost and bidding data, from contractors competing for the classified program. With access to such information, Boeing may be able to raise prices for the classified program by bidding less aggressively than it otherwise would. In addition, Boeing's position as SETA contractor could enable it anticompetitively to favor itself and/or disfavor its competitors in a number of ways, such as submitting unfair evaluations of its competitors' proposals.
The proposed Consent Agreement remedies the proposed acquisition's potential anticompetitive effects in this classified program by prohibiting Boeing from performing certain SETA services for this classified program in the future. To prevent the anticompetitive exchange of information, the Consent Agreement requires Boeing to: (1) Use non-public SETA services information only its capacity as provider of technical assistance to DoD, or for the provision of SETA services not prohibited by the Order; and (2) erect a “firewall” between its SETA services division and Boeing's satellite division. In addition, to assist DoD in the transition of these SETA services responsibilities to one of its own research and development centers, the Consent Agreement further requires Boeing to: (1) Provide technical assistance, at the request of DoD, for a period not to exceed one year; and (2) provide to DoD all documents relating to certain SETA services that Boeing has received in its role as SETA contractor.
Second, Hughes is a significant supplier of satellites and Boeing is a significant supplier of launch vehicles, which are used to launch satellites from the Earth's surface into space. In order for a launch vehicle to launch a satellite, launch vehicle suppliers and satellite suppliers must work closely together and share a substantial amount of proprietary and competitively sensitive information to integrate the two products. Thus, as a significant supplier of launch vehicles, Boeing/Hughes would have access to competitively sensitive information of competing satellite manufacturers which it could share with its satellite divisions. If Boeing's satellite divisions gained access to this information, Boeing would be able to determine the cost and technology involved in its competitors' satellite proposals. This could have immediate anticompetitive consequences on upcoming satellite procurements by allowing Boeing to bid less aggressively than it otherwise would. In addition, the incentives of other satellite suppliers to invest in future technological advancements could be reduced due to concerns that Boeing would be able to “free-ride” off its competitors' technological innovations. As a significant supplier of satellites, Boeing/Hughes likewise would have access to sensitive information of competing launch vehicle providers. If Boeing's launch vehicle division were to gain access to this information, it could allow Boeing to bid less aggressively in upcoming launch vehicle procurements and reduce incentives of competitors to invest in technological innovation.
The proposed Consent Agreement is designed to protect the proprietary and competitively sensitive information of launch vehicle and satellite suppliers. Specifically, the Consent Agreement prohibits Boeing's satellite business from making any non-public launch vehicle information obtained from any launch vehicle provider available to Boeing's launch vehicle business. Under the proposed Consent Agreement, Boeing may only use such information as a provider of satellites. Similarly, the proposed Consent Agreement prohibits Boeing's launch vehicle business from Start Printed Page 59430making any non-public satellite information obtained from any satellite supplier available to Boeing's satellite business. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Boeing may only use such information in its capacity as a launch vehicle provider. The Commission has issued similar orders limiting potentially anticompetitive information transfers following mergers or acquisitions, including: Lockheed Martin, (C-3685) (September 20, 1996); Raytheon Company, (C-3681) (September 10, 1996); Lockheed Corporation/Martin Marietta Corporation, (C-3576) (May 9, 1995); Alliant Techsystems Inc., (C-3567) (April 7, 1995); Martin Marietta, (C-3500) (June 28, 1994).
Third, the proposed acquisition raises concern that Boeing could withhold satellite interface information, which is necessary to integrate a satellite with a launch vehicle, from its launch vehicle competitors. If Boeing were to withhold such satellite interface information, it could potentially disadvantage or raise the costs of other launch vehicle suppliers that are competing to launch Boeing's satellites, and ultimately to customers. The proposed Consent Agreement remedies this concern by requiring that for any satellite manufactured by Boeing/Hughes prior to the date the Consent Agreement becomes final, Boeing must provide satellite interface information, as that term is defined in the Consent Agreement, to any launch vehicle supplier within thirty (30) days from the date Boeing receives a request for such information. The Order also requires Boeing to notify all launch vehicle suppliers, in writing, that satellite interface information relating to any Boeing/Hughes satellite bus, model, or product line is available upon request. Boeing/Hughes is also required to provide each launch vehicle supplier with instructions on how to request such information. The Consent Agreement further requires Boeing to provide satellite interface information relating to any of its satellite buses, models, or product lines manufactured after the date this Consent Agreement becomes final, to any launch vehicle supplier that requests such information or to whom Boeing previously supplied satellite interface information. However, for each satellite manufactured for the United States Government, Boeing shall only be required to provide satellite interface information to any launch vehicle supplier specified by the United States Government. In addition, the Consent Agreement requires Boeing/Hughes to provide satellite interface information to any launch vehicle supplier specified by any satellite customer no later than Boeing provides such information to its own launch vehicle businesses.
Fourth, the Commission has appointed Sheila Widnall as a monitor trustee pursuant to the proposed Consent Agreement to ensure that Boeing complies with the provisions of the Order. The monitor trustee will, among other things, assist the Commission in monitoring Boeing's compliance with the firewall requirements of the Order and Boeing's efforts to provide satellite interface information to other launch vehicle competitors. Because satellite interface information often involves technical information, the monitor trustee will aid in evaluating the contents of the satellite interface information that is to be distributed. Under the provisions of the Consent Agreement, the monitor trustee will serve for a period of ten (10) years and provide, among other things, written reports sixty (60) days after she is appointed detailing Boeing's compliance with the proposed Consent Agreement and annually thereafter for the next ten (10) on the anniversary of the date the Decision and Order becomes final.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement and Decision Order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Consent Agreement and Decision Order or to modify their terms in any way.Start Signature
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
1. The complaint includes an additional line of commerce, the provision of SETA Services, in which to analyze the effects of the transaction. This line of commerce is included in the complaint because the proposed merger results in the integration of Boeing into two non-horizontal markets: (1) the provision of SETA Services; and (2) a competitor for a certain classified program for which Boeing is providing SETA services. It is necessary to analyze the competitive conditions in the market for provision of SETA Services in order to determine whether there would be anticompetitive effects in the related market for a certain classified program for which Boeing is providing SETA services.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 00-25571 Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M