5796 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Notices 

1The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See FTC 

Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

Respondents: Business or other for– 

profit. 

Number of Respondents: 1,400 

respondents; 1,400 responses. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours 

x 2 filings per year. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement and third party 

disclosure requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. 

Statutory authority for this collection of 

information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 

sections 151–154, 201, 202, 251–254, 

256, 271 and 303(r). 

Total Annual Burden: 5,600 hours. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

The Commission is not requesting 

respondents to submit confidential 

information to the Commission. Any 

respondent who submits information to 

the Commission that they believe is 

confidential may request confidential 

treatment of such information under 47 

CFR 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 

Need and Uses: The Commission will 

submit this expiring information 

collection to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) during this comment 

period in order to obtain the three year 

clearance from them. There is no change 

to the Commission’s reporting and/third 

party disclosure requirements. 

The Commission asked whether 

physical collocation in remote terminals 

presents technical or security concerns 

and, if so, whether these concerns 

warrant modification of its collocation 

rules. The Commission asked whether 

incumbent LECs should be required to 

provide requesting carriers with 

demographic and other information 

regarding particular remote terminals 

similar to the information available 

regarding incumbent LEC central 

offices. Requesting carriers use 

demographic and other information 

obtained from incumbent LECs to 

determine whether they wish to 

collocate at particular remote terminals. 

This proposed collection in the 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FCC 00–297) will be used 

by the Commission, the state 

commissions, and competitive carriers 

to facilitate the deployment of advanced 

services and other telecommunications 

services in implementation of section 

251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2363 Filed 2–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–S 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 091 0159] 

Danaher Corporation and MDS, Inc.; 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders to Aid Public 

Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. 

SUMMARY: 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 and the terms of the 

consent order — embodied in the 

consent agreement — that would settle 

these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to 

‘‘DanaherMDS, File No. 091 0159’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

Please note that your comment — 

including your name and your state — 

will be placed on the public record of 

this proceeding, including on the 

publicly accessible FTC website, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

an individual’s Social Security Number; 

date of birth; driver’s license number or 

other state identification number, or 

foreign country equivalent; passport 

number; financial account number; or 

credit or debit card number. Comments 

also should not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential. . . .,’’ as provided in 

Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 

16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 

using the following weblink: (https:// 

public.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

DanaherMDS) and following the 

instructions on the web-based form. To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the web-based form at the weblink: 

(https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

DanaherMDS). If this Notice appears at 

(http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

index.jsp), you may also file an 

electronic comment through that 

website. The Commission will consider 

all comments that regulations.gov 

forwards to it. You may also visit the 

FTC website at (http://www.ftc.gov/) to 

read the Notice and the news release 

describing it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘DanaherMDS, File 

No. 091 0159’’ reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 

(Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. 

The Federal Trade Commission Act 

(‘‘FTC Act’’) and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC 

website, to the extent practicable, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission makes every 

effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from the 

public comments it receives before 

placing those comments on the FTC 

website. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.shtm). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Notices 5797 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael R. Moiseyev (202-326-3106) or 

Lynda Lao (202-326-3054), Bureau of 

Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission 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 January 27, 2010), on 

the World Wide Web, at (http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm). A paper 

copy can be obtained from the FTC 

Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20580, either in 

person or by calling (202) 326-2222. 

Public comments are invited, and may 

be filed with the Commission in either 

paper or electronic form. All comments 

should be filed as prescribed in the 

ADDRESSES section above, and must be 

received on or before the date specified 

in the DATES section. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Order to Aid Public Comment 

I. Introduction 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted from 

Danaher Corporation (‘‘Danaher’’) and 

MDS, Inc. (‘‘MDS’’), subject to final 

approval, an Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders (‘‘Consent Agreement’’), 

which is designed to remedy the 

anticompetitive effects resulting from 

Danaher’s acquisition of the stock and 

assets of MDS Analytical Technologies 

(US) Inc. (‘‘MDS Analytical 

Technologies’’), a subsidiary of MDS. 

Under the terms of the Consent 

Agreement, Danaher will divest the 

assets of MDS’s Arcturus business 

segment, which includes assets relating 

to the manufacture and sale of laser 

microdissection devices and associated 

reagent products, to Life Technologies 

Corp. (‘‘Life Technologies’’) within 10 

days after the date the Decision and 

Order (‘‘Order’’) becomes final. The 

proposed Consent Agreement has been 

placed on the public record for 30 days 

to solicit comments from interested 

persons. Comments received during this 

period will become part of the public 

record. After 30 days, the Commission 

will again review the proposed Consent 

Agreement and will decide whether it 

should withdraw from the proposed 

Consent Agreement, modify it, or make 

it final. 

On September 2, 2009, Danaher 

entered into an agreement to acquire the 

stock and assets of MDS Analytical 

Technologies from MDS. The 

Commission’s complaint alleges the 

facts described below and that the 

proposed acquisition, if consummated, 

would violate Section 7 of the Clayton 

Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and 

Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 

15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening competition 

in the market for laser microdissection 

devices. 

II. The Parties 

Danaher, headquartered in 

Washington, DC, is a global supplier of 

professional, medical, industrial, 

commercial, and consumer products. 

Danaher’s Leica Microsystems (‘‘Leica’’) 

business operates within its Medical 

Technologies segment. Leica 

manufactures and sells laser 

microdissection devices. 

Headquartered in Mississauga, 

Ontario, MDS is a life sciences company 

that operates three core businesses, 

MDS Analytical Technologies, MDS 

Nordion, and MDS Pharma Services. 

MDS’s Arcturus business, which 

assembles and sells laser 

microdissection devices and chemical 

reagents, is a part of MDS Analytical 

Technologies. 

III. Laser Microdissection Devices 

Laser microdissection devices are 

used to separate small groups of cells — 

or even a single cell — from larger tissue 

samples for specialized tests, such as 

DNA analysis, RNA analysis, or protein 

profiling. These devices are fully 

integrated machines that incorporate a 

laser, a computer, and a monitor with a 

microscope. Laser microdissection is a 

particularly useful technique in the 

fields of molecular pathology, cell 

biology, oncology, and forensic 

medicine where scientists and 

researchers must separate small cell 

samples from heterogeneous tissue in 

order to analyze disease progression and 

develop more targeted treatments. For 

these scientists and researchers, the 

evidence indicates that laser 

microdissection devices constitute a 

relevant market for antitrust inquiry. 

Although other techniques exist for 

separating cells or proteins, none are as 

precise or reliable as laser 

microdissection. Accordingly, if the 

price of laser microdissection devices 

were to increase by five or ten percent, 

customers would not switch to any 

other technique or device. 

The relevant geographic area in which 

to evaluate the market for laser 

microdissection devices is no larger 

than North America. Customers are 

unwilling to consider laser 

microdissection device suppliers that do 

not have a service and support 

infrastructure that can provide a timely 

response to a maintenance call. 

Additionally, customers in North 

America strongly prefer laser 

microdissection suppliers that have an 

established reputation among their 

colleagues in the United States and the 

rest of North America. Whether the 

geographic market is defined as North 

America or the United States, however, 

is unlikely to have any impact on the 

ultimate antitrust analysis because the 

same firms compete in each area. 

With only four current competitors, 

the market for laser microdissection 

devices is highly concentrated. The 

proposed acquisition would combine 

Danaher’s Leica brand of laser 

microdissection devices with MDS’s 

Arcturus brand, leaving only three 

viable competitors. Laser 

microdissection devices are generally 

purchased through a competitive 

evaluation process. The four available 

products are highly differentiated, 

which leads to competition in a number 

of areas, including features, reliability, 

performance, price, and service. The 

elimination of the direct competition 

between the Leica and Arcturus devices 

could allow Danaher to exercise market 

power unilaterally by increasing prices 

or decreasing innovation or service, 

particularly to those customers who 

view Leica and Arcturus as their top 

two choices. 

Neither new entry nor repositioning 

and expansion sufficient to deter or 

counteract the anticompetitive effects of 

the proposed acquisition in the laser 

microdissection market is likely to 

occur within two years. A de novo 

entrant to the laser microdissection 

market would face significant 

impediments to timely and sufficient 

entry. A firm would have to design, 

develop, and test a product with at least 

comparable functionality to the existing 

devices, which would also require 

navigating around the patents of the 

current competitors. Furthermore, a new 

entrant would have to establish a 

service and support infrastructure in 

North America. Perhaps most 

importantly, a new entrant would have 

to engage leading researchers and 

practitioners to develop a reputation for 

quality and reliability. For existing 

foreign firms that currently sell laser 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
5798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Notices 

microdissection devices outside of 

North America, cultivating the 

necessary reputation is a major barrier 

to competitively significant entry into 

the North American market. It can take 

several years to acquire a reputation on 

par with the current laser 

microdissection device brands in order 

to make a significant market impact. 

Accordingly, entry by a foreign firm is 

unlikely to make a significant market 

impact sufficient to counteract any 

anticompetitive effects from the 

proposed transaction within the next 

two years. 

IV. The Consent Agreement 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

eliminates the competitive concerns 

raised by Danaher’s proposed 

acquisition of MDS Analytical 

Technologies by requiring the 

divestiture of MDS’s assets relating to 

the manufacture and sale of laser 

microdissection devices. Danaher and 

MDS have agreed to sell the Arcturus 

assets, including the laser 

microdissection device business, as well 

as a related reagents business, to Life 

Technologies within 10 days after the 

date the Order becomes final. 

Life Technologies possesses the 

knowledge, experience, and financial 

viability to successfully purchase and 

manage the divestiture assets and 

replace MDS as an effective competitor 

in the laser microdissection market. 

Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, 

Life Technologies is a life sciences 

company that manufactures and sells 

scientific research equipment that it 

distributes throughout the world. Life 

Technologies does not currently 

compete against Danaher and MDS in 

the sale of laser microdissection 

devices, but it does manufacture and 

sell reagents for downstream analysis 

using tissue samples obtained through 

laser microdissection. The Arcturus 

business would be a natural fit into Life 

Technologies’s product portfolio, since 

both sets of products are marketed to the 

same customer base. 

Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, 

Life Technologies would receive all the 

assets necessary to operate MDS’s 

current laser microdissection business, 

including equipment used to assemble 

the Arcturus laser microdissection 

device, Arcturus software, and reagents 

that are sold as complementary 

downstream products to Arcturus 

customers. In addition to key Arcturus 

employees, who would be made 

available to Life Technologies, the 

Consent Agreement requires MDS to 

provide Life Technologies with access 

to certain other employees who may be 

needed to facilitate the transition of the 

Arcturus laser microdissection assets. 

The Consent Agreement also requires 

MDS to transfer all the Arcturus 

intellectual property, including patent 

licenses for infrared laser 

microdissection device technology. 

Divestiture of all of the Arcturus laser 

microdissection assets will ensure that 

Life Technologies has a full line of highquality laser microdissection devices, 

enabling it to compete immediately with 

the merged entity. 

The Commission may appoint an 

interim monitor to oversee the 

divestiture of the Arcturus laser 

microdissection business at any time 

after the Consent Agreement has been 

signed. In order to ensure that the 

Commission remains informed about 

the status of the proposed divestitures, 

the proposed Consent Agreement 

requires the parties to file periodic 

reports with the Commission until the 

divestiture is accomplished. If the 

Commission determines that Danaher 

has not fully complied with its 

obligations under the Order within 10 

days after the date the Order becomes 

final, the Commission may appoint a 

divestiture trustee to divest the Arcturus 

assets to a Commission-approved 

acquirer. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Consent Agreement, and it is not 

intended to constitute an official 

interpretation of the proposed Order or 

the Agreement to Maintain Assets, or to 

modify their terms in any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2460 Filed 2–3–10: 7:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

National Institute on Drug Abuse; 

Notice of Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is 

hereby given of the following meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, Special Emphasis Panel; 

International Research Collaborations on 

HIV/AIDS and Drug Use. 

Date: February 18, 2010. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Sofitel Washington DC, Lafayette 

Square, 806 15th Street, NW., Madeline 

Room, Washington, DC 20005. 

Contact Person: Scott Chen, PhD, Scientific 

Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, 

National Institute on Drug Abuse, National 

Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6101 Executive 

Boulevard, Room 220, MSC 8401, Bethesda, 

MD 20892, 301–443–9511, 

chensc@mail.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, Special Emphasis Panel, 

Targeted Library Synthesis and Screening at 

Novel Targets for Potential Drug Addiction 

(R21/R33). 

Date: February 25, 2010. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One 

Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Minna Liang, PhD, 

Scientific Review Officer, Training and 

Special Projects Review Branch, Office of 

Extramural Affairs, National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, NIH, 6101 Executive Blvd., 

Room 220, MSC 8401, Bethesda, MD 20852, 

301–435–1432, liangm@nida.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, Special Emphasis Panel, 

Diversity-promoting Institutions’ Drug Abuse 

Research Development Program. 

Date: February 25, 2010. 

Time: 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6101 

Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852. 

Contact Person: Nadine Rogers, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Office of 

Extramural Affairs, National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 

8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, 

MD 20892–8401, 301–402–2105, 

rogersn2@nida.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: National Institute on 

Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; 

Diversity-promoting Institutions’ Drug Abuse 

Research Development Program B. 

Date: February 25, 2010. 

Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6101 

Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852. 

Contact Person: Meenaxi Hiremath, PhD, 

Health Scientist Administrator, Office of 

Extramural Affairs, National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, 

DHHS, 6101 Executive Blvd., Suite 220, MSC 

8401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–402–7964, 

mh392g@nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: National Institute on 

Drug Abuse Initial Review Group; Training 

and Career Development Subcommittee. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES