Overview
Title
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Expeditionary Missions Consortium-Crane
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Expeditionary Missions Consortium—Crane (EMC2) is a group of companies working together on a project, and they are telling the government about changes in their team to make sure everything is fair. Some new companies joined the team, like AForge and Lockheed Martin, and one company, Plasan North America, left, but they plan to keep letting more companies in and notifying the government about these changes.
Summary AI
The Expeditionary Missions Consortium—Crane (EMC2) has sent notifications to the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission about changes in its membership to limit antitrust plaintiffs' recovery to actual damages under certain conditions. Several companies, including AForge LLC, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., and Lockheed Martin Aerostructures, are new members, while Plasan North America, Inc. has left the consortium. EMC2 plans to continue updating its membership changes as needed and remains open to new members. This filing follows previous notifications in line with the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, with the latest notice being published in the Federal Register.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Editorial Commentary
The document is a notice from the Federal Register concerning the Expeditionary Missions Consortium—Crane (EMC2). It details updates in the membership of this consortium, which aims to limit the recovery of damages by antitrust plaintiffs under certain conditions. Filed with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission, the document primarily focuses on the adjustments to the consortium's membership. New entities such as AForge LLC and Lockheed Martin are joining, while Plasan North America has withdrawn.
General Summary
This announcement falls under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993. The Act is designed to encourage innovation and collaboration by reducing potential legal repercussions for antitrust violations in cooperative ventures. Essentially, EMC2's notification ensures that it can continue operating within legal boundaries while modifying and extending its membership.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document comes with several interpretative challenges. First, it lacks a concise abstract, possibly complicating the initial comprehension for readers. While several companies are listed as joining the consortium, the rationale behind their inclusion or the departure of Plasan North America is not explicitly detailed. Additionally, terms like "Expeditionary Missions Consortium—Crane (EMC2)" are not fully explained, which might confuse those less familiar with the entity. The use of legal shorthand, such as "et seq.," might likewise leave readers puzzled without prior familiarity.
The text subtly implies future changes to the consortium's membership but does not detail a timeline or criteria for these changes. Finally, the document mentions a "planned activity of the group research project," yet fails to shed light on what this entails. This absence of context may leave stakeholders and the general public questioning the nature of the consortium's activities.
Impact on the Public
For the broader public, this document signifies a legal mechanism through which companies collaborate in research and development while minimizing antitrust liabilities. This kind of collaboration might foster technological advancements that benefit society at large. However, without clear information on the consortium's objectives and activities, it's difficult to assess this impact fully.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders like the involved companies, this notice provides clarity and legal reaffirmation for their cooperative roles within EMC2. It emphasizes a supportive framework for joint research endeavors, potentially enhancing innovative outputs and market competitiveness.
Conversely, the lack of transparency about the consortium's activities might concern industry observers or competitors. It raises questions about what technological developments or market influences could arise from this partnership.
In summary, while the document fulfills its role in updating official membership changes within the Expeditionary Missions Consortium—Crane, more transparency and explanation regarding the consortium's actions and goals could better inform both the public and interested stakeholders.
Issues
• The document lacks a clear abstract, which may hinder a quick understanding of its purpose and significance.
• Certain terms like 'Expeditionary Missions Consortium—Crane (“EMC2”)' could be more clearly defined to avoid ambiguity for those unfamiliar with the entity.
• The use of 'et seq.' without further explanation or linkage might be unclear to readers unfamiliar with U.S. Code references.
• There is no explicit explanation for why the specific organizations were added or removed as parties, which could help provide more context on the decision-making process.
• The text mentions EMC2 intends to make additional notifications about membership changes, but it doesn’t specify any timelines or criteria for these changes, which could be helpful for transparency.
• There is no information on the nature of the 'planned activity of the group research project', making it difficult to assess the context and relevance of these changes.