2406 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Notices 

47See FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, 

Appended to Int’l. Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 

1070 (1984) (‘‘First of all, the injury must be 

substantial. The Commission is not concerned with 

trivial or merely speculative harms.’’). As an initial 

matter, consumers do not have a right to purchase 

a good that a court or the ITC has found to infringe 

a patent. Thus, the only possible cognizable harm 

is the risk that the threat of an injunction may raise 

prices or reduce innovation through deterring the 

adoption of beneficial technologies. There is no 

compelling evidence that either type of harm exists 

in this matter, and it is far from certain that such 

harm is likely to occur in the future, particularly 

because it is so rare for the courts or the ITC to issue 

injunctions or exclusion orders for SEP-encumbered 

technologies. 48 In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, FTC File 

No. 051–0094, Complaint (Jan. 23, 2008), available 

at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510094/ 

080923ndscomplaint.pdf. 49See, e.g., Submission of Qualcomm 

Incorporated in Response to the Commission’s 

Request for Written Submissions, In re Certain 

Wireless Communications Devices, Portable Music 

and Data Processing Devices, Computers and 

Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–745, at 5 

(Int’l Trade Comm’n July 9, 2012) (‘‘Language 

whereby a patentee making a FRAND commitment 

would have waived all right to injunction was 

debated and briefly included in an [intellectual 

property rights] policy adopted in 1993. However, 

when the current policy was adopted in 1994, that 

provision was removed. The only permissible 

inference from this sequence is that the ETSI 

membership turned their minds to the question of 

waiver of injunction and affirmatively decided to 

exclude any such waiver from the content of the 

FRAND commitment.’’) (footnotes omitted). 

50See Commonwealth, 492 F. Supp. 2d at 602 

(applying eBay factors and holding that permanent 

injunction warranted for infringement of technology 

that was ‘‘core technology’’ for the 802.11a standard 

and ‘‘embodie[d]’’ in the 802.11g standard). 

end users of products or services. 

Departing from this approach makes the 

FTC into a general overseer of all 

business disputes simply on the 

conjecture that a dispute between two 

large businesses may affect consumer 

prices, which is a great expansion of our 

role and is far afield from our mission 

of protecting consumers. Further, the 

unfairness count in the complaint 

alleges merely speculative consumer 

harm, at best, and thus fails to comply 

with the Commission’s Unfairness 

Statement.47

Fourth, even taking the muchcriticized N-Data consent decree as a 

starting point, it is unclear whether this 

case meets the requirements identified 

by the Commission in that matter. In NData, the Commission alleged that there 

was a clear promise to license by NData’s predecessor-in-interest, which NData subsequently broke.48 The 

evidence presented to me in the instant 

matter does not reveal a clear promise 

by Motorola not to seek an injunction on 

the SEPs at issue and at least one court 

has found there was no such promise. 

Nor does there appear to have been any 

reasonable expectation on the part of 

members of the relevant SSOs—the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’), the European 

Telecommunications Standards Institute 

(‘‘ETSI’’), and the International 

Telecommunications Union (‘‘ITU’’)— 

that SEP holders, including Google and 

Motorola, had waived their right to seek 

injunctions on their SEPs. At least one 

of the SSOs at issue in this matter, ETSI, 

went so far as to explicitly reject an 

outright ban on injunctions.49 And the 

one federal court that has issued an 

injunction against what appears to have 

been a willing licensee on a RANDencumbered patent (not identified 

expressly as a SEP but a core technology 

embodied in the standards) did so five 

years ago on the 802.11a and 802.11g 

IEEE-adopted wireless local area 

network standards.50 Thus, it should 

have been a reasonable expectation 

since that time to IEEE members 

(including the affected parties here) that 

an injunction could issue in certain 

situations even on a RAND-encumbered 

SEP against a potentially-willing 

licensee. 

In sum, I disagree with my colleagues 

about whether the alleged conduct 

violates Section 5 but, more 

importantly, believe the Commission’s 

actions fail to provide meaningful 

limiting principles regarding what is a 

Section 5 violation in the standardsetting context, as evidenced by its 

shifting positions in N-Data, Bosch, and 

this matter. Because I cannot ignore the 

jurisdictional conflicts and doctrinal 

contradictions that we are inviting with 

this policy and its inconsistent 

application, I dissent. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00465 Filed 1–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds of 

the Clayton Act 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission announces the revised 

thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino 

Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 

required by the 2000 amendment of 

Section 7A of the Clayton Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 11, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. 

Michael Verne, Federal Trade 

Commission, Bureau of Competition, 

Premerger Notification Office, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 301, 

Washington, DC 20580, Phone (202) 

326–3100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as 

added by the Hart-Scott-Rodino 

Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 

Public Law 94–435, 90 Stat. 1390 (‘‘the 

Act’’), requires all persons 

contemplating certain mergers or 

acquisitions, which meet or exceed the 

jurisdictional thresholds in the Act, to 

file notification with the Commission 

and the Assistant Attorney General and 

to wait a designated period of time 

before consummating such transactions. 

Section 7A(a)(2) requires the Federal 

Trade Commission to revise those 

thresholds annually, based on the 

change in gross national product, in 

accordance with Section 8(a)(5). Note 

that while the filing fee thresholds are 

revised annually, the actual filing fees 

are not similarly indexed and, as a 

result, have not been adjusted for 

inflation in over a decade. The new 

thresholds, which take effect 30 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register, are as follows: 

Subsection of 7A 

Original 

threshold 

[million] 

Adjusted 

threshold 

[million] 

7A(a)(2)(A) ............................................................................................................................................................... $200 $283.6 

7A(a)(2)(B)(i) ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 70.9 

7A(a)(2)(B)(i) ............................................................................................................................................................ 200 283.6 

7A(a)(2)(B)(ii)(i) ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 14.2 

7A(a)(2)(B)(ii)(i) ........................................................................................................................................................ 100 141.8 

7A(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 14.2 

7A(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) ....................................................................................................................................................... 100 141.8 

7A(a)(2)(B)(ii)(III) ...................................................................................................................................................... 100 141.8 

7A(a)(2)(B)(ii)(III) ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 14.2 

Section 7A note: Assessment and Collection of Filing Fees1 (3)(b)(1) .................................................................. 100 141.8 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2013 / Notices 2407 

Subsection of 7A 

Original 

threshold 

[million] 

Adjusted 

threshold 

[million] 

Section 7A note: Assessment and Collection of Filing Fees (3)(b)(2) .................................................................... 100 141.8 

Section 7A note: Assessment and Collection of Filing Fees (3)(b)(2) .................................................................... 500 709.1 

Section 7A note: Assessment and Collection of Filing Fees (3)(b)(3) .................................................................... 500 709.1 

1Public Law 106–553, Sec. 630(b) amended Sec. 18a note. 

Any reference to these thresholds and 

related thresholds and limitation values 

in the HSR rules (16 CFR parts 801–803) 

and the Antitrust Improvements Act 

Notification and Report Form and its 

Instructions will also be adjusted, where 

indicated by the term ‘‘(as adjusted)’’, as 

follows: 

Original threshold 

Adjusted 

threshold 

[million] 

$10 million ............................ $14.2 

$50 million ............................ 70.9 

$100 million .......................... 141.8 

$110 million .......................... 156.0 

$200 million .......................... 283.6 

$500 million .......................... 709.1 

$1 billion ............................... 1,418.1 

By direction of the Commission. 

Richard C. Donohue, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00378 Filed 1–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Medicare Payment Advisory 

Commission Nomination Letters 

AGENCY: Government Accountability 

Office (GAO). 

ACTION: Notice on letters of nomination. 

SUMMARY: The Balanced Budget Act of 

1997 established the Medicare Payment 

Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and 

gave the Comptroller General 

responsibility for appointing its 

members. For appointments to MedPAC 

that will be effective May 1, 2013, I am 

announcing the following: Letters of 

nomination should be submitted 

between January 15 and March 8, 2013, 

to ensure adequate opportunity for 

review and consideration of nominees 

prior to the appointment of new 

members. 

ADDRESSES: 

GAO: MedPACappointments@gao.gov. 

GAO: 441 G Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20548. 

MedPAC: 601 New Jersey Avenue NW., 

Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

GAO: Office of Public Affairs, (202) 

512–4800. 

42 U.S.C. 1395b–6. 

Gene L. Dodaro, 

Comptroller General of the United States. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00335 Filed 1–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1610–02–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[Document Identifier: CMS–10458] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) is publishing the 

following summary of proposed 

collections for public comment. 

Interested persons are invited to send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

1. Type of Information Collection 

Request: New collection (request for a 

new OMB control number). Title of 

Information Collection: Consumer 

Research Supporting Outreach for 

Health Insurance Marketplace. Use: The 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services is requesting clearance for two 

surveys to aid in understanding levels of 

awareness and customer service needs 

associated with the Health Insurance 

Marketplace established by the 

Affordable Care Act. Because the 

Marketplace will provide coverage to 

the almost 50 million uninsured in the 

United States through individual and 

small employer programs, we have 

developed one survey to be 

administered to individual consumers 

most likely to use the Marketplace and 

another to be administered to small 

employers most likely to use the Small 

Business Health Options portion of the 

Marketplace. These brief surveys, 

designed to be conducted quarterly, will 

give CMS the ability to obtain a rough 

indication of the types of outreach and 

marketing that will be needed to 

enhance awareness of and knowledge 

about the Marketplace for individual 

and business customers. CMS’ biggest 

customer service need is likely to be 

providing sufficient education so 

consumers: (a) can take advantage of the 

Marketplace and (b) know how to access 

CMS’ customer service channels. The 

surveys will provide information on 

media use, concept awareness, and 

conceptual or content areas where 

education for customer service delivery 

can be improved. Awareness and 

knowledge gaps are likely to change 

over time based not only on 

effectiveness of CMS’ marketing efforts, 

but also of those of state, local, private 

sector, and nongovernmental 

organizations. Form Number: CMS– 

10458 (OCN: 0938-New). Frequency: 

Quarterly. Affected Public: Individuals 

or households, Private Sector (business 

or other for-profits). Number of 

Respondents: 40,200. Total Annual 

Responses: 40,200. Total Annual Hours: 

2,480. (For policy questions regarding 

this collection contact Clarese Astrin at 

410–786–5424. For all other issues call 

410–786–1326.) 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, access CMS’ Web Site 

address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ 

PaperworkReductionActof1995, or 

Email your request, including your 

address, phone number, OMB number, 

and CMS document identifier, to 

Paperwork@cms.hhs.gov, or call the 

Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786– 

1326. 

In commenting on the proposed 

information collections please reference 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with