80 FR 57055 - Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 182 (September 21, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 182 (September 21, 2015)
| Page Range | 57055-57059 | |
| FR Document | 2015-23498 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 57055-57059] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-23498] [[Page 57055]] Vol. 80 Monday, No. 182 September 21, 2015 Part II Federal Trade Commission ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding ``Unfair Methods of Competition'' Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act; Commission Policy Statement; Notice Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices [[Page 57056]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding ``Unfair Methods of Competition'' Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Commission policy statement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission has issued a Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding ``Unfair Methods of Competition'' Under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Statement describes the underlying antitrust principles that guide the Commission's application of its statutory authority to take action against ``unfair methods of competition'' prohibited by Section 5 of the FTC Act but not necessarily by the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act. DATES: The Commission announced the issuance of the Statement on August 13, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald S. Clark, Secretary, (202-326- 2514), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding ``Unfair Methods of Competition'' Under Section 5 of the FTC Act Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act declares ``unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce'' to be unlawful. 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). Section 5's ban on unfair methods of competition encompasses not only those acts and practices that violate the Sherman or Clayton Act but also those that contravene the spirit of the antitrust laws and those that, if allowed to mature or complete, could violate the Sherman or Clayton Act. Congress chose not to define the specific acts and practices that constitute unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5, recognizing that application of the statute would need to evolve with changing markets and business practices. Instead, it left the development of Section 5 to the Federal Trade Commission as an expert administrative body, which would apply the statute on a flexible case- by-case basis, subject to judicial review. This statement is intended to provide a framework for the Commission's exercise of its ``standalone'' Section 5 authority to address acts or practices that are anticompetitive but may not fall within the scope of the Sherman or Clayton Act. In deciding whether to challenge an act or practice as an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 on a standalone basis, the Commission adheres to the following principles:The Commission will be guided by the public policy underlying the antitrust laws, namely, the promotion of consumer welfare; the act or practice will be evaluated under a framework similar to the rule of reason, that is, an act or practice challenged by the Commission must cause, or be likely to cause, harm to competition or the competitive process, taking into account any associated cognizable efficiencies and business justifications; and the Commission is less likely to challenge an act or practice as an unfair method of competition on a standalone basis if enforcement of the Sherman or Clayton Act is sufficient to address the competitive harm arising from the act or practice. By direction of the Commission, with Chairwoman Ramirez and Commissioner Brill, Commissioner Wright, and Commissioner McSweeny voting in the affirmative, and Commissioner Ohlhausen dissenting. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. Statement of the Federal Trade Commission \1\ on the Issuance of Enforcement Principles Regarding ``Unfair Methods of Competition '' Under Section 5 of the FTC Act --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This statement reflects the views of Chairwoman Ramirez and Commissioners Brill, Wright, and McSweeny. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 and vested with enforcement authority over ``unfair methods of competition'' under Section 5 of the FTC Act.\2\ The Commission has issued a policy statement describing the enforcement principles that guide the exercise of our ``standalone'' Section 5 authority to address anticompetitive acts or practices that fall outside the scope of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). All references in this statement to ``Section 5'' relate to its prohibition of ``unfair methods of competition'' and not to its prohibition of ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In describing the principles and overarching analytical framework that guide the Commission's application of Section 5, our statement affirms that Section 5 is aligned with the other antitrust laws, which have evolved over time and are guided by the goal of promoting consumer welfare and informed by economic analysis. The result of this evolution is the modern ``rule of reason.'' \3\ Our statement makes clear that the Commission will rely on the accumulated knowledge and experience embedded within the ``rule of reason'' framework developed under the antitrust laws over the past 125 years--a framework well understood by courts, competition agencies, the business community, and practitioners. These principles also retain for the Commission the flexibility to apply its authority in a manner similar to the case-by- case development of the other antitrust laws. Finally, we confirm that the Commission will continue to rely, when sufficient and appropriate, on the Sherman and Clayton Acts as its primary enforcement tools for protecting competition and promoting consumer welfare. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The ``rule of reason'' is the cornerstone of modern antitrust analysis. As the leading treatise on antitrust law explains, In antitrust jurisprudence, ``reasonableness'' sums up the judgment that behavior is consistent with the antitrust laws. A monopolist acting reasonably does not violate Sherman Act Sec. 2. Reasonable collaboration among competitors does not violate Sherman Act Sec. 1. Although reasonableness is usually judged case by case, it is sometimes made for a class of conduct, such as price fixing, which is then said to be intrinsically or ``per se'' unlawful. Thus, per se rules also derive from judgments about reasonableness, albeit for a type of behavior rather than for a particular case. Even under the Clayton Act, where decisions about tying, exclusive dealing, and mergers are seldom phrased in reasonableness terms, the application of those statutes depends on the same elements that define ``reasonableness.'' VII Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ] 1500 (3d ed. 2010). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been much thoughtful dialogue inside and outside of the agency over the course of the last century about the precise contours of Section 5's prohibition against unfair methods of competition.\4\ We have benefited greatly from this ongoing dialogue and from judicial insights through the process of judicial review, and we believe that the principles we have set forth in our Section 5 statement are ones on which there is broad consensus.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Public Workshop Concerning the Prohibition of Unfair Methods of Competition in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 73 FR 50,818 (Aug. 28, 2008), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-08-28/pdf/E8-20008.pdf and at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/section-5-ftc-act-competition-statute/p083900section5.pdf; Section 5 of the FTC Act as a Competition Statute, Fed. Trade Comm'n (Oct. 17, 2008), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2008/10/section-5-ftc-act-competition-statute. \5\ Like the Commission's policy statements on unfairness and deception, no public comment was sought here. The purpose of each of these policy statements is similar, which is to provide the Commission's view on how it approaches the use of its statutory authority. See FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, Letter from the Federal Trade Commission to Senator Wendell H. Ford, Chairman, Consumer Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Senator John C. Danforth, Ranking Minority Member, Consumer Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Dec. 17, 1980), appended to Int'l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 1070 (1984), and available at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1980/12/ftc-policy-statement-unfairness; FTC Policy Statement on Deception, Letter from James C. Miller III, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, to Representative John D. Dingell, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Oct. 14, 1983), appended to Cliff Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984), and available at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 57057]] Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen: FTC Act Section 5 Policy Statement I appreciate the effort to issue some form of guidance on the scope of Section 5 of the FTC Act's prohibition of ``unfair methods of competition'' (UMC).\1\ However, I voted against the issuance of this policy statement in this manner. The approach of my colleagues to this important issue of competition policy is too abbreviated in substance and process for me to support. Moreover, what substance the statement does offer ultimately provides more questions than answers, undermining its value as guidance. In addition, the Commission's failure to seek public input has deprived us of guidance from key stakeholders on this particular interpretation of Section 5. Finally, the Commission's official embrace of such an unbounded interpretation of UMC is almost certain to encourage more frequent exploration of this authority in conduct and merger investigations and standalone Section 5 enforcement by the Commission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Like many interested parties, I have called for Section 5 guidance on several occasions during my time on the Commission. See, e.g., In re Motorola Mobility LLC & Google Inc., FTC File No. 121- 0120, Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen (Jan. 3, 2013), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/01/130103googlemotorolaohlhausenstmt.pdf; In re Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No. 121-0081, Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen (Nov. 26, 2012), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2012/11/121126boschohlhausenstatement.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, the content of today's policy statement is seriously lacking. Unlike the detailed analysis in our policy statements on Section 5's prohibition of ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices,'' \2\ this Section 5 statement does not mention, much less grapple with, the existing case law. While the majority might like to sweep that unfortunate history under the rug, the fact is that the FTC was repeatedly rebuffed by the courts when it last tried to reach well beyond settled principles of antitrust law in asserting its Section 5 authority.\3\ Instead, the Commission acts as if it is writing on a clean slate for UMC. Further, and again in contrast to the consumer protection policy statements, this statement includes no examples of either lawful or unlawful conduct to provide practical guidance on how the Commission will implement this open-ended enforcement policy.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Commission Statement of Policy on the Scope of the Consumer Unfairness Jurisdiction, 104 F.T.C. 1070, 1071 (1984) (appended to In re Int'l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984)) [hereinafter Unfairness Statement], available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-unfair.htm; Fed. Trade Comm'n, Policy Statement on Deception (appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984)), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm. See also J. Howard Beales, Brightening the Lines: The Use of Policy Statements at the Federal Trade Commission, 72 Antitrust L.J. 1057, 1058 (2005) (``Each policy statement clarified and refined the legal standards that the Commission would apply, and each narrowed the range of the Commission's discretion. In their own ways, each statement has had a substantial impact on the development of the law.''). \3\ See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. FTC, 729 F.2d 128, 139 (2d Cir. 1984) (Ethyl); Boise Cascade Corp. v. FTC, 637 F.2d 573, 582 (9th Cir. 1980); Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. FTC, 630 F.2d 920, 927 (2d Cir. 1980) (OAG). \4\ See, e.g., William Blumenthal, Clear Agency Guidelines: Lessons from 1982, 68 Antitrust L.J. 5, 25 (2000) (``Good guidance goes beyond commonplace knowledge to offer specifics, to bridge gaps, to resolve ambiguities. It has an edginess; and because it provides details, it limits agency discretion.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To understand the impact of these deficiencies, it is instructive to consider, for example, the basic facts in the Commission's 1980 defeat in Official Airline Guides and how such facts could be analyzed under this new rubric. Requiring a monopolist provider of flight information to publish additional information on commuter airlines, as the Commission attempted to do, would undoubtedly benefit consumers in the ancillary market for commuter airline services. That would seem sufficient to satisfy the majority's ``consumer welfare'' requirement. It would also enhance competition in the market for air travel, a market in which the monopolist at issue in the case did not actually participate. That would not seem to be a bar to UMC liability, however, because competition would be enhanced somewhere and that ought to suffice under the second prong of the majority's statement. Finally, traditional antitrust laws do not provide the remedy the Commission sought to impose in OAG; however, pursuing such remedy likely would not be precluded by the statement's third prong.\5\ Similarly, incidents of simple oligopolistic interdependence, like the kind seen in Ethyl \6\ or Boise Cascade,\7\ are now arguably fair game under this framework. Because the policy statement fails to address past case law or give examples of lawful and unlawful conduct, however, the business community and other agency stakeholders are left guessing whether these previous theories of liability are now revived. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See OAG, 630 F.2d 920. \6\ See Ethyl, 729 F.2d 128 (challenging unilateral pricing practices in oligopolistic industry). \7\ See Boise Cascade Corp., 637 F.2d 573 (challenging use of base point pricing system as incipient threat to competition). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning to the substance of the brief statement, if the Commission is going to issue a policy statement in this controversial area, it should provide meaningful guidance to those subject to our jurisdiction. This statement, however, provides no such guidance. Although no policy statement can anticipate all issues or questions that are likely to arise in the enforcement of a statute, this statement raises many more questions than it answers. For example, to what extent will the Commission be ``guided by the public policy underlying the antitrust laws''? In what way does ``a framework similar to the rule of reason'' differ from a traditional rule of reason analysis? Does ``taking into account any associated cognizable efficiencies'' mean the Commission will actually balance any such efficiencies against the alleged harms, or is there some other formula anticipated by the majority? Further, given the statement's embrace of incipiency as a guiding principle, at what point are harms or efficiencies measured? At what market share should a firm without monopoly power be concerned about triggering an incipient violation through its otherwise lawful conduct? What factors will the Commission consider in deciding whether to pursue under Section 5 conduct that it considers insufficiently addressed by the antitrust laws? \8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ The brief majority statement that accompanies the policy statement does not meaningfully add to its contents. For example, how will the Commission determine that the antitrust laws are not ``sufficient'' or ``appropriate''? When will the Commission use a traditional rule of reason analysis, and when will it use Section 5 ``in a manner similar to the case-by-case development of the other antitrust laws''? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although short on details and constraints, one of the few guiding principles included in the statement is the pronouncement that Section 5 covers conduct that ``contravenes the spirit of the antitrust laws'' or which, ``if allowed to mature or complete, could violate'' the antitrust laws. These two extremely broad characterizations of the scope of Section 5 contribute to the vagueness of this statement. The statement also explicitly permits the Commission to pursue conduct under Section 5 in the absence of substantial harm to competition.\9\ A [[Page 57058]] substantial harm requirement, however, is found in our Unfairness Statement,\10\ and thoughtful commentary from leading antitrust scholars has suggested that such a requirement be included in any UMC statement.\11\ In any case, the fact that this policy statement requires some harm to competition does little to constrain the Commission, as every Section 5 theory pursued in the last 45 years, no matter how controversial or convoluted, can be and has been couched in terms of protecting competition and/or consumers.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The statement may very well constrain the Commission from pursuing Section 5 to its broadest possible extent to reach conduct that is in bad faith, fraudulent, or oppressive without any possible relation to competition. See, e.g., FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233, 242 (1972). In practice, however, the Commission has not relied solely on such a rationale to support a UMC violation for several decades. Thus, in practice the statement constrains very little, if anything, in this regard. \10\ See Unfairness Statement, supra note 2, at 1073 (``First of all, the injury must be substantial. The Commission is not concerned with trivial or merely speculative harms.''). \11\ See, e.g., Section of Antitrust Law, Presidential Transition Report: The State of Antitrust Enforcement 2012 20 (2013) (``Standalone Section 5 enforcement should be used, if at all, only when the conduct involves substantial competitive harm.''); Transcript of Fed. Trade Comm'n Workshop, Section 5 of the FTC Act as a Competition Statute at 130 (Oct. 17, 2008) [hereinafter Section 5 Workshop], available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/section-5-ftc-act-competition-statute/transcript.pdf (``[M]y proposal was for where the practice causes very substantial harm, the remedy does not affect efficiencies or other good business reasons, and a clear line can be developed that allows predictability.'') (Robert Pitofsky). See also Herbert Hovenkamp, The Federal Trade Commission and the Sherman Act, 62 Fla. L. Rev. 871, 878-79 (2010) (``[T]he practices that [the FTC] condemns must really be `anticompetitive' in a meaningful sense. That is, there must be a basis for thinking that the practice either does or will lead to reduced output and higher consumer prices or lower quality in the affected market.''). \12\ See, e.g., In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, FTC File No. 051-0094, Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, at 2 & n.5 (Jan. 23, 2008), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2008/01/080122statement.pdf (stating that Section 5 reaches conduct that is ``oppressive and coercive'' but also stating: ``The process of establishing a standard displaces competition; therefore, bad faith or deceptive behavior that undermines the process may also undermine competition . . . .''); In re Intel Corp., FTC File No. 061-0247, Statement of Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch, at 2 (Dec. 16, 2009), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/568601/091216intelchairstatement.pdf (``We take seriously our mandate to find a violation of Section 5 only when it is proven that the conduct at issue has not only been unfair to rivals in the market but, more important, is likely to harm consumers, taking into account any efficiency justifications for the conduct in question.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, the possibilities for expansive use of Section 5 under this policy statement appear vast. The majority's reading of Section 5 could easily accommodate a host of controversial theories pursued or considered by the Commission over the past four decades, including breach of standard-setting commitments, loyalty discounts, facilitating practices, conscious parallelism, business torts, incipient violations of the antitrust laws, and unfair competition through violation of various laws outside the antitrust context.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ My colleagues have not ruled out any of these theories in their policy and majority statements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To provide certainty regarding future enforcement under Section 5, a Commission policy statement must constrain the agency in some meaningful way. In truth, the open-ended ``similar to the rule of reason'' framework--to the extent I understand how it may be applied-- does not seem to differ meaningfully from the existing case-by-case approach heretofore favored by a majority of the Commission. Indeed, my experience as a Commissioner leads me to believe that my colleagues, who have diverse views about antitrust law, would apply this policy statement to reflect these significant differences. No interpretation of the policy statement by a single Commissioner, no matter how thoughtful, will bind this or any future Commission to greater limits on Section 5 UMC enforcement than what is in this exceedingly brief, highly general statement. Although some may argue that the courts will be an adequate check on this authority, many commenters have raised concerns about how frequently the FTC settles Section 5 cases and how infrequently courts review our UMC enforcement.\14\ I see no reason why this policy statement will change the incentives for settlement on either side or affect the infrequency of judicial scrutiny of FTC enforcement under Section 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See, e.g., William E. Kovacic & Marc Winerman, Competition Policy and the Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 76 Antitrust L.J. 929, 941 (2010) (``As influences on doctrine and firm behavior, though, settlements are weak substitutes for decisions by the appellate courts that affirm FTC rulings based on Section 5. One can have confidence in a theory's power and durability only when it has been tested in adversarial proceedings and endorsed by reviewing courts . . . .''); James Campbell Cooper, The Perils of Excessive Discretion: The Elusive Meaning of Unfairness in Section 5 of the FTC Act, 3 J. Antitrust Enforcement 87, 95 (2015) (``Even if the courts are the de jure arbiters of what constitutes an unfair method of competition, as long as the Commission avoids litigation, it becomes the de facto decider. This state of affairs calls into question the legitimacy of the FTC's modern Section 5 cases. As long as the FTC's theories remain untested in an adversarial proceeding, and unratified by appellate decisions, uncertainty will remain about the true reach of Section 5.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The effect of this expansive policy statement also raises issues for our dual antitrust enforcement framework. Principles of fairness and predictability require that divergence in liability standards between the two agencies resulting from enforcement of Section 5 be minimal.\15\ Otherwise, firms may face liability (or not), depending solely on which agency reviews their conduct. One can only imagine how this policy statement will affect the clearance process under which the agencies allocate matters, which is now primarily based on industry expertise. Even worse from a fairness standpoint is the prospect of the Commission leveraging its expansive Section 5 authority to pursue conduct by a firm whose time-sensitive merger happens to be under review by the Commission.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See, e.g., Antitrust Modernization Comm'n, Report and Recommendations 139 (2007) (addressing merger context and concluding: ``So long as both agencies retain authority to enforce the antitrust laws, such divergence should be minimized or eliminated.''). \16\ See, e.g., In re Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No. 121-0081, Decision and Order (Nov. 26, 2012), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/04/130424robertboschdo.pdf (consent order settling simultaneous merger and standalone Section 5 investigations). Indeed, concerns about the FTC having additional leverage over merging parties as compared to the DOJ have led to proposed legislation to strip the FTC of its ability to challenge an unconsummated merger in administrative litigation. See H.R. 5402, 113th Cong. (2014); Hearing on The ``Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules (SMARTER) Act of 2014, Before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 2 (2014) (statement of Deborah A. Garza, former Chair, Antitrust Modernization Commission) (raising concerns about the FTC's ``potentially enormous advantage vis-[agrave]-vis DOJ and leverage over the parties with respect to the mergers it chooses to challenge''). The effect of today's policy statement may well be to increase that perceived leverage. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, the lack of internal deliberation and consultation surrounding this policy statement--as opposed to the topic of Section 5 more generally--is unfortunate.\17\ Many, including former Chairman Pitofsky, have urged the Commission to seek public comment on any proposed Section 5 policy statement before adopting it.\18\ Doing so here would have [[Page 57059]] allowed the Commission to receive input from key stakeholders, including Congress, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, the business community, and the antitrust bar on this particular policy formulation.\19\ Such input would have helped ensure that the Commission is offering durable and practical guidance around the fundamental question of whether and when this agency will reach beyond well-settled principles of antitrust law to impose new varieties of UMC liability.\20\ It would also have allowed more careful consideration of how this expansive policy may be viewed by other antitrust regimes around the world.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ The majority cites to a 2008 workshop to claim adequate discussion of our enforcement authority under Section 5. That workshop took place seven years ago, before any sitting member of the Commission was in office. \18\ See, e.g., Section 5 Workshop, supra note 11, at 67 (``If the FTC, by the way, is going to publish a rule along this line or any line, it should be put out for public comment so that people can react to it.'') (Robert Pitofsky); U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Unfair Methods of Competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act: Does the U.S. Need Rules ``Above and Beyond Antitrust''?, CPI Antitrust Chronicle 8-9 (Sept. 2009) (``Any additional movement toward the use of Section 5 should be preceded by hearings and substantial time for debate among the antitrust community to ensure appropriate notice and guidance is provided to the business community and other interested constituents.''). \19\ I also objected to the Commission's withdrawal, without any public input, of its policy statement on pursuing disgorgement in competition matters in 2012. See Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen Dissenting from the Commission's Decision to Withdraw its Policy Statement on Monetary Equitable Remedies in Competition Cases (July 31, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/07/120731ohlhausenstatement.pdf. \20\ Such consultation is especially warranted given the serious debate about the need to reach beyond the antitrust laws at all. See, e.g., II Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ] 302h, at 31 (4th ed. 2014) (``Apart from possible historical anachronisms in the application of those statutes, the Sherman and Clayton Acts are broad enough to cover any anticompetitive agreement or monopolistic situation that ought to be attacked whether `completely full blown or not.' Nothing prevents those statutes from working their own condemnation of practices violating their basic policies.''); In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, FTC File No. 051- 0094, Dissenting Statement of Chairman Majoras, at 2-3 (Jan. 23, 2008), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510094/080122majoras.pdf (``Although Section 5 enables the Commission to reach conduct that is not actionable under the Sherman or Clayton Acts, we have largely limited ourselves to matters in which respondents took actions short of a fully consummated Section 1 violation (but with clear potential to harm competition), such as invitations to collude. This limitation is partly self-imposed, reflecting the Commission's recognition of the scholarly consensus that finds the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as currently interpreted, to be sufficiently encompassing to address nearly all matters that properly warrant competition policy enforcement.'') (footnotes omitted). \21\ See, e.g., James J. O'Connell, Section 5, 1914, and the FTC at 100, 29 Antitrust 5, 6 (Fall 2014) (``[T]he FTC does not operate in a vacuum but rather as part of an international enforcement community, the newer members of which study very closely the practices and policies of more experienced agencies. . . . [I]n the absence of clear limiting principles the FTC runs the risk of its [standalone Section 5] enforcement being seen by newer agencies as following a kind of `We know it when we see it' approach, one which translates into other languages and cultures all too easily as a kind of implicit endorsement of arbitrary exercises of agency power.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, I disagree with the view that having an expansive UMC policy statement is better than having no statement at all. Arming the FTC staff with this sweeping new policy statement is likely to embolden them to explore the limits of UMC in conduct and merger investigations. The majority is also likely to pursue new UMC enforcement, else why bother to put out a statement with so little internal deliberation and no provision for public input? I fear that this will ultimately lead to more, not less, uncertainty and burdens for the business community. I would prefer that any Section 5 policy statement be put out for public comment before adoption and include, among other things: (1) A substantial harm requirement; (2) a disproportionate harm test; (3) a stricter standard for pursuing conduct already addressed by the antitrust laws; (4) a commitment to minimize FTC-DOJ conflict; (5) reliance on robust economic evidence on the practice at issue and exploration of available non-enforcement tools prior to taking any enforcement action; and (6) a commitment generally to avoid pursuing the same conduct as both an unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ For a detailed discussion of factors that I believe should be included in a Section 5 statement, see Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Section 5 of the FTC Act: Principles of Navigation, 2 J. Antitrust Enforcement 1 (2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For all of these reasons, I dissent from the issuance of this policy statement. [FR Doc. 2015-23498 Filed 9-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices 57057
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner this Section 5 statement does not or give examples of lawful and unlawful
Maureen K. Ohlhausen: FTC Act mention, much less grapple with, the conduct, however, the business
Section 5 Policy Statement existing case law. While the majority community and other agency
I appreciate the effort to issue some might like to sweep that unfortunate stakeholders are left guessing whether
form of guidance on the scope of history under the rug, the fact is that the these previous theories of liability are
Section 5 of the FTC Act’s prohibition FTC was repeatedly rebuffed by the now revived.
of ‘‘unfair methods of competition’’ courts when it last tried to reach well Turning to the substance of the brief
(UMC).1 However, I voted against the beyond settled principles of antitrust statement, if the Commission is going to
issuance of this policy statement in this law in asserting its Section 5 authority.3 issue a policy statement in this
manner. The approach of my colleagues Instead, the Commission acts as if it is controversial area, it should provide
to this important issue of competition writing on a clean slate for UMC. meaningful guidance to those subject to
policy is too abbreviated in substance Further, and again in contrast to the our jurisdiction. This statement,
and process for me to support. consumer protection policy statements, however, provides no such guidance.
Moreover, what substance the statement this statement includes no examples of Although no policy statement can
does offer ultimately provides more either lawful or unlawful conduct to anticipate all issues or questions that are
questions than answers, undermining its provide practical guidance on how the likely to arise in the enforcement of a
value as guidance. In addition, the Commission will implement this open- statute, this statement raises many more
Commission’s failure to seek public ended enforcement policy.4 questions than it answers.
input has deprived us of guidance from To understand the impact of these For example, to what extent will the
key stakeholders on this particular deficiencies, it is instructive to consider, Commission be ‘‘guided by the public
interpretation of Section 5. Finally, the for example, the basic facts in the policy underlying the antitrust laws’’?
Commission’s official embrace of such Commission’s 1980 defeat in Official In what way does ‘‘a framework similar
an unbounded interpretation of UMC is Airline Guides and how such facts could to the rule of reason’’ differ from a
almost certain to encourage more be analyzed under this new rubric. traditional rule of reason analysis? Does
frequent exploration of this authority in Requiring a monopolist provider of ‘‘taking into account any associated
conduct and merger investigations and flight information to publish additional cognizable efficiencies’’ mean the
standalone Section 5 enforcement by the information on commuter airlines, as Commission will actually balance any
Commission. the Commission attempted to do, would such efficiencies against the alleged
First, the content of today’s policy undoubtedly benefit consumers in the harms, or is there some other formula
statement is seriously lacking. Unlike ancillary market for commuter airline anticipated by the majority? Further,
the detailed analysis in our policy services. That would seem sufficient to given the statement’s embrace of
statements on Section 5’s prohibition of satisfy the majority’s ‘‘consumer incipiency as a guiding principle, at
‘‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices,’’ 2 welfare’’ requirement. It would also what point are harms or efficiencies
enhance competition in the market for measured? At what market share should
Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 1070 (1984), and air travel, a market in which the a firm without monopoly power be
available at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/ monopolist at issue in the case did not concerned about triggering an incipient
1980/12/ftc-policy-statement-unfairness; FTC actually participate. That would not violation through its otherwise lawful
Policy Statement on Deception, Letter from James seem to be a bar to UMC liability,
C. Miller III, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, conduct? What factors will the
to Representative John D. Dingell, Chairman, House however, because competition would be Commission consider in deciding
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Oct. 14, enhanced somewhere and that ought to whether to pursue under Section 5
1983), appended to Cliff Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. suffice under the second prong of the
110, 174 (1984), and available at https://
conduct that it considers insufficiently
www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-
majority’s statement. Finally, traditional addressed by the antitrust laws? 8
statement-deception. antitrust laws do not provide the Although short on details and
1 Like many interested parties, I have called for remedy the Commission sought to constraints, one of the few guiding
Section 5 guidance on several occasions during my impose in OAG; however, pursuing principles included in the statement is
time on the Commission. See, e.g., In re Motorola such remedy likely would not be
Mobility LLC & Google Inc., FTC File No. 121–0120, the pronouncement that Section 5
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. precluded by the statement’s third covers conduct that ‘‘contravenes the
Ohlhausen (Jan. 3, 2013), available at https:// prong.5 Similarly, incidents of simple spirit of the antitrust laws’’ or which, ‘‘if
www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/ oligopolistic interdependence, like the allowed to mature or complete, could
2013/01/130103googlemotorolaohlhausenstmt.pdf; kind seen in Ethyl 6 or Boise Cascade,7
In re Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No. 121–0081, violate’’ the antitrust laws. These two
Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen are now arguably fair game under this extremely broad characterizations of the
(Nov. 26, 2012), available at https://www.ftc.gov/ framework. Because the policy scope of Section 5 contribute to the
sites/default/files/documents/cases/2012/11/ statement fails to address past case law vagueness of this statement.
121126boschohlhausenstatement.pdf.
2 See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Commission Statement The statement also explicitly permits
3 See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. FTC,
of Policy on the Scope of the Consumer Unfairness the Commission to pursue conduct
729 F.2d 128, 139 (2d Cir. 1984) (Ethyl); Boise
Jurisdiction, 104 F.T.C. 1070, 1071 (1984)
Cascade Corp. v. FTC, 637 F.2d 573, 582 (9th Cir. under Section 5 in the absence of
(appended to In re Int’l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. substantial harm to competition.9 A
1980); Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. FTC, 630 F.2d
949 (1984)) [hereinafter Unfairness Statement],
920, 927 (2d Cir. 1980) (OAG).
available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad- 4 See, e.g., William Blumenthal, Clear Agency 8 The brief majority statement that accompanies
unfair.htm; Fed. Trade Comm’n, Policy Statement
on Deception (appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs., Guidelines: Lessons from 1982, 68 Antitrust L.J. 5, the policy statement does not meaningfully add to
Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984)), available at 25 (2000) (‘‘Good guidance goes beyond its contents. For example, how will the Commission
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm. commonplace knowledge to offer specifics, to determine that the antitrust laws are not
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
See also J. Howard Beales, Brightening the Lines: bridge gaps, to resolve ambiguities. It has an ‘‘sufficient’’ or ‘‘appropriate’’? When will the
The Use of Policy Statements at the Federal Trade edginess; and because it provides details, it limits Commission use a traditional rule of reason
Commission, 72 Antitrust L.J. 1057, 1058 (2005) agency discretion.’’). analysis, and when will it use Section 5 ‘‘in a
5 See OAG, 630 F.2d 920.
(‘‘Each policy statement clarified and refined the manner similar to the case-by-case development of
legal standards that the Commission would apply, 6 See Ethyl, 729 F.2d 128 (challenging unilateral the other antitrust laws’’?
and each narrowed the range of the Commission’s pricing practices in oligopolistic industry). 9 The statement may very well constrain the
discretion. In their own ways, each statement has 7 See Boise Cascade Corp., 637 F.2d 573 Commission from pursuing Section 5 to its broadest
had a substantial impact on the development of the (challenging use of base point pricing system as possible extent to reach conduct that is in bad faith,
law.’’). incipient threat to competition). Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:16 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21SEN2.SGM 21SEN2](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_57237/page/3.svg)
![57058 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices
substantial harm requirement, however, including breach of standard-setting Principles of fairness and predictability
is found in our Unfairness Statement,10 commitments, loyalty discounts, require that divergence in liability
and thoughtful commentary from facilitating practices, conscious standards between the two agencies
leading antitrust scholars has suggested parallelism, business torts, incipient resulting from enforcement of Section 5
that such a requirement be included in violations of the antitrust laws, and be minimal.15 Otherwise, firms may face
any UMC statement.11 In any case, the unfair competition through violation of liability (or not), depending solely on
fact that this policy statement requires various laws outside the antitrust which agency reviews their conduct.
some harm to competition does little to context.13 One can only imagine how this policy
constrain the Commission, as every To provide certainty regarding future statement will affect the clearance
Section 5 theory pursued in the last 45 enforcement under Section 5, a process under which the agencies
years, no matter how controversial or Commission policy statement must allocate matters, which is now primarily
convoluted, can be and has been constrain the agency in some based on industry expertise. Even worse
couched in terms of protecting meaningful way. In truth, the open- from a fairness standpoint is the
competition and/or consumers.12 ended ‘‘similar to the rule of reason’’ prospect of the Commission leveraging
Thus, the possibilities for expansive framework—to the extent I understand its expansive Section 5 authority to
use of Section 5 under this policy how it may be applied—does not seem pursue conduct by a firm whose time-
statement appear vast. The majority’s to differ meaningfully from the existing sensitive merger happens to be under
reading of Section 5 could easily case-by-case approach heretofore review by the Commission.16
accommodate a host of controversial favored by a majority of the In addition, the lack of internal
theories pursued or considered by the Commission. Indeed, my experience as deliberation and consultation
Commission over the past four decades, a Commissioner leads me to believe that surrounding this policy statement—as
my colleagues, who have diverse views opposed to the topic of Section 5 more
fraudulent, or oppressive without any possible about antitrust law, would apply this generally—is unfortunate.17 Many,
relation to competition. See, e.g., FTC v. Sperry & including former Chairman Pitofsky,
Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233, 242 (1972). In policy statement to reflect these
practice, however, the Commission has not relied significant differences. No interpretation have urged the Commission to seek
solely on such a rationale to support a UMC of the policy statement by a single public comment on any proposed
violation for several decades. Thus, in practice the
Commissioner, no matter how Section 5 policy statement before
statement constrains very little, if anything, in this adopting it.18 Doing so here would have
regard. thoughtful, will bind this or any future
10 See Unfairness Statement, supra note 2, at 1073 Commission to greater limits on Section 15 See, e.g., Antitrust Modernization Comm’n,
(‘‘First of all, the injury must be substantial. The 5 UMC enforcement than what is in this Report and Recommendations 139 (2007)
Commission is not concerned with trivial or merely exceedingly brief, highly general
speculative harms.’’). (addressing merger context and concluding: ‘‘So
11 See, e.g., Section of Antitrust Law, Presidential statement. long as both agencies retain authority to enforce the
Although some may argue that the antitrust laws, such divergence should be
Transition Report: The State of Antitrust
minimized or eliminated.’’).
Enforcement 2012 20 (2013) (‘‘Standalone Section courts will be an adequate check on this 16 See, e.g., In re Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File
5 enforcement should be used, if at all, only when authority, many commenters have
the conduct involves substantial competitive No. 121–0081, Decision and Order (Nov. 26, 2012),
harm.’’); Transcript of Fed. Trade Comm’n raised concerns about how frequently available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/
Workshop, Section 5 of the FTC Act as a the FTC settles Section 5 cases and how documents/cases/2013/04/
130424robertboschdo.pdf (consent order settling
Competition Statute at 130 (Oct. 17, 2008) infrequently courts review our UMC simultaneous merger and standalone Section 5
[hereinafter Section 5 Workshop], available at enforcement.14 I see no reason why this
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ investigations). Indeed, concerns about the FTC
public_events/section-5-ftc-act-competition-statute/ policy statement will change the having additional leverage over merging parties as
transcript.pdf (‘‘[M]y proposal was for where the incentives for settlement on either side compared to the DOJ have led to proposed
practice causes very substantial harm, the remedy legislation to strip the FTC of its ability to challenge
or affect the infrequency of judicial an unconsummated merger in administrative
does not affect efficiencies or other good business
reasons, and a clear line can be developed that
scrutiny of FTC enforcement under litigation. See H.R. 5402, 113th Cong. (2014);
allows predictability.’’) (Robert Pitofsky). See also Section 5. Hearing on The ‘‘Standard Merger and Acquisition
Herbert Hovenkamp, The Federal Trade The effect of this expansive policy Reviews Through Equal Rules (SMARTER) Act of
Commission and the Sherman Act, 62 Fla. L. Rev. 2014, Before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Reform,
statement also raises issues for our dual Commercial and Antitrust Law of the H. Comm. on
871, 878–79 (2010) (‘‘[T]he practices that [the FTC]
condemns must really be ‘anticompetitive’ in a
antitrust enforcement framework. the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 2 (2014) (statement of
meaningful sense. That is, there must be a basis for Deborah A. Garza, former Chair, Antitrust
thinking that the practice either does or will lead 13 My colleagues have not ruled out any of these Modernization Commission) (raising concerns
to reduced output and higher consumer prices or theories in their policy and majority statements. about the FTC’s ‘‘potentially enormous advantage
lower quality in the affected market.’’). 14 See, e.g., William E. Kovacic & Marc vis-à-vis DOJ and leverage over the parties with
12 See, e.g., In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, Winerman, Competition Policy and the Application respect to the mergers it chooses to challenge’’). The
FTC File No. 051–0094, Statement of the Federal of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, effect of today’s policy statement may well be to
Trade Commission, at 2 & n.5 (Jan. 23, 2008), 76 Antitrust L.J. 929, 941 (2010) (‘‘As influences on increase that perceived leverage.
17 The majority cites to a 2008 workshop to claim
available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ doctrine and firm behavior, though, settlements are
documents/cases/2008/01/080122statement.pdf weak substitutes for decisions by the appellate adequate discussion of our enforcement authority
(stating that Section 5 reaches conduct that is courts that affirm FTC rulings based on Section 5. under Section 5. That workshop took place seven
‘‘oppressive and coercive’’ but also stating: ‘‘The One can have confidence in a theory’s power and years ago, before any sitting member of the
process of establishing a standard displaces durability only when it has been tested in Commission was in office.
competition; therefore, bad faith or deceptive adversarial proceedings and endorsed by reviewing 18 See, e.g., Section 5 Workshop, supra note 11,
behavior that undermines the process may also courts . . . .’’); James Campbell Cooper, The Perils at 67 (‘‘If the FTC, by the way, is going to publish
undermine competition . . . .’’); In re Intel Corp., of Excessive Discretion: The Elusive Meaning of a rule along this line or any line, it should be put
FTC File No. 061–0247, Statement of Chairman Unfairness in Section 5 of the FTC Act, 3 J. out for public comment so that people can react to
Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch, at 2 (Dec. 16, Antitrust Enforcement 87, 95 (2015) (‘‘Even if the it.’’) (Robert Pitofsky); U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2009), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ courts are the de jure arbiters of what constitutes Unfair Methods of Competition under Section 5 of
documents/public_statements/568601/ an unfair method of competition, as long as the the FTC Act: Does the U.S. Need Rules ‘‘Above and
091216intelchairstatement.pdf (‘‘We take seriously Commission avoids litigation, it becomes the de Beyond Antitrust’’?, CPI Antitrust Chronicle 8–9
our mandate to find a violation of Section 5 only facto decider. This state of affairs calls into question (Sept. 2009) (‘‘Any additional movement toward the
when it is proven that the conduct at issue has not the legitimacy of the FTC’s modern Section 5 cases. use of Section 5 should be preceded by hearings
only been unfair to rivals in the market but, more As long as the FTC’s theories remain untested in an and substantial time for debate among the antitrust
important, is likely to harm consumers, taking into adversarial proceeding, and unratified by appellate community to ensure appropriate notice and
account any efficiency justifications for the conduct decisions, uncertainty will remain about the true guidance is provided to the business community
in question.’’). reach of Section 5.’’). and other interested constituents.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:16 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21SEN2.SGM 21SEN2](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_57237/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices 57059
allowed the Commission to receive more careful consideration of how this is also likely to pursue new UMC
input from key stakeholders, including expansive policy may be viewed by enforcement, else why bother to put out
Congress, the Department of Justice other antitrust regimes around the a statement with so little internal
(DOJ) Antitrust Division, the business world.21 deliberation and no provision for public
community, and the antitrust bar on this Finally, I disagree with the view that input? I fear that this will ultimately
particular policy formulation.19 Such having an expansive UMC policy lead to more, not less, uncertainty and
input would have helped ensure that statement is better than having no burdens for the business community.
the Commission is offering durable and statement at all. Arming the FTC staff I would prefer that any Section 5
practical guidance around the with this sweeping new policy policy statement be put out for public
fundamental question of whether and statement is likely to embolden them to comment before adoption and include,
when this agency will reach beyond explore the limits of UMC in conduct among other things: (1) A substantial
well-settled principles of antitrust law and merger investigations. The majority harm requirement; (2) a
to impose new varieties of UMC disproportionate harm test; (3) a stricter
liability.20 It would also have allowed 080122majoras.pdf (‘‘Although Section 5 enables
the Commission to reach conduct that is not standard for pursuing conduct already
19 I also objected to the Commission’s withdrawal,
actionable under the Sherman or Clayton Acts, we addressed by the antitrust laws; (4) a
have largely limited ourselves to matters in which commitment to minimize FTC–DOJ
without any public input, of its policy statement on respondents took actions short of a fully
pursuing disgorgement in competition matters in consummated Section 1 violation (but with clear conflict; (5) reliance on robust economic
2012. See Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. potential to harm competition), such as invitations evidence on the practice at issue and
Ohlhausen Dissenting from the Commission’s to collude. This limitation is partly self-imposed, exploration of available non-
Decision to Withdraw its Policy Statement on reflecting the Commission’s recognition of the
Monetary Equitable Remedies in Competition Cases enforcement tools prior to taking any
scholarly consensus that finds the Sherman and
(July 31, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ Clayton Acts, as currently interpreted, to be enforcement action; and (6) a
2012/07/120731ohlhausenstatement.pdf. sufficiently encompassing to address nearly all commitment generally to avoid
20 Such consultation is especially warranted
matters that properly warrant competition policy pursuing the same conduct as both an
given the serious debate about the need to reach enforcement.’’) (footnotes omitted).
beyond the antitrust laws at all. See, e.g., II Phillip 21 See, e.g., James J. O’Connell, Section 5, 1914,
unfair method of competition and an
E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law and the FTC at 100, 29 Antitrust 5, 6 (Fall 2014) unfair or deceptive act or practice.22
¶ 302h, at 31 (4th ed. 2014) (‘‘Apart from possible (‘‘[T]he FTC does not operate in a vacuum but For all of these reasons, I dissent from
historical anachronisms in the application of those rather as part of an international enforcement
statutes, the Sherman and Clayton Acts are broad community, the newer members of which study
the issuance of this policy statement.
enough to cover any anticompetitive agreement or very closely the practices and policies of more [FR Doc. 2015–23498 Filed 9–18–15; 8:45 am]
monopolistic situation that ought to be attacked experienced agencies. . . . [I]n the absence of clear
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
whether ‘completely full blown or not.’ Nothing limiting principles the FTC runs the risk of its
prevents those statutes from working their own [standalone Section 5] enforcement being seen by
condemnation of practices violating their basic 22 For a detailed discussion of factors that I
newer agencies as following a kind of ‘We know it
policies.’’); In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, when we see it’ approach, one which translates into believe should be included in a Section 5 statement,
FTC File No. 051–0094, Dissenting Statement of other languages and cultures all too easily as a kind see Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Section 5 of the FTC
Chairman Majoras, at 2–3 (Jan. 23, 2008), available of implicit endorsement of arbitrary exercises of Act: Principles of Navigation, 2 J. Antitrust
at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510094/ agency power.’’). Enforcement 1 (2014).
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:16 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\21SEN2.SGM 21SEN2](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_57237/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 09:38:32
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 09:38:32
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Commission policy statement. | |
| Dates | The Commission announced the issuance of the Statement on August 13, 2015. | |
| Contact | Donald S. Clark, Secretary, (202-326- 2514), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 57055 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR