1

PUBLIC RECORD VERSION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman

Thomas B. Leary

Pamela Jones Harbour

Jon Leibowitz

________________________________________________

In the Matter of |

|

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. |

a foreign corporation, |

|

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, | Docket No. 9300

a corporation, and |

|

PITT-DES MOINES, INC., |

a corporation. |

 |

________________________________________________|

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RESPONDENTS’ MOTION

FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF MATERIAL PREVIOUSLY

DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.45(b), Respondents Chicago Bridge & Iron Company

N.V. and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (“CB&I” or “the Respondents”) have filed a Motion

for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Designated as Confidential (“the Motion”). 

The materials for which CB&I seeks in camera treatment consist of Attachment B to Complaint

Counsel’s Response to CB&I Respondents’ Further Briefing on Specific Remedy Issues

(“Response”), discussions on pages 7, 13, and 14 of the Response that were redacted from the

public version of the Response, and portions of the Motion and Exhibit A of the Motion

(Affidavit of David Bordages). CB&I seeks in camera treatment of these materials for a period

of five years.

CB&I asserts that the public disclosure of this material would damage CB&I’s business

and the information meets the Commission’s criteria for granting in camera treatment. Motion at

4. Complaint Counsel does not oppose Respondents’ Motion to the extent it seeks in camera

treatment for the material on pages 13 and 14 of Complaint Counsel’s Response and portions of

CB&I’s Motion and Exhibit A of the Motion. However, Complaint Counsel point out that CB&I
2

has not provided a justification for in camera treatment of the material on page 7 and Attachment

B of Complaint Counsel’s Response and thus argue that those materials should be placed on the

public record. 

The Commission finds that CB&I has satisfied the standard set forth in Commission Rule

3.45(b) for those materials on pages 13 and 14 of Complaint Counsel’s Response and portions of

CB&I’s Motion and Exhibit A of the Motion and shown that the disclosure of this information

would likely result in “clearly defined, serious injury.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). See H.P. Hood &

Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 1184, 1188 (1961); Bristol-Myers Co., 90 F.T.C. 455, 456 (1977); General

Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 352, 355 (1980). Although we recognize that Respondents have not

established that Attachment B to Complaint Counsel’s Response meets this standard, the

Commission believes this failure may have been inadvertent, and we have therefore granted in

camera status for six months for this material. At the end of this period, CB&I may move to

have the in camera period extended or, in the absence of such a motion, the material will be

unsealed. The Commission has determined to make public the material on page 7, which merely

references [ REDACTED ]. This material is available from

public sources and therefore is not eligible for in camera status. See Tr. at 2957-58, 6869-73. 

Finally, the Commission is not persuaded that in camera treatment should be granted for the fiveyear period requested by CB&I. The information for which such treatment is being granted is

temporal in nature, and its competitive sensitivity is likely to diminish over time. The

Commission thus believes that a two-year period is appropriate.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT the material on pages 13 and 14 of Complaint Counsel’s

Response that was redacted from the public version of the Response and portions of CB&I’s

Motion and Exhibit A thereto that were redacted in the public version of the Motion shall be

afforded in camera treatment for a period of two years from the date of this Order, at which time

Respondents may show cause why those materials should not be made public; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Attachment B to Complaint Counsel’s Response

shall be afforded in camera treatment for a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date

of this Order, at which time Respondents may show cause why those materials should not be

made public; and
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondents’ Motion is DENIED to the extent it

seeks in camera treatment for the material on page 7 of Complaint Counsel’s Response that was

redacted from the public version. 

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

SEAL

ISSUED: August 24, 2005