27974 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Notices

This matter concerns allegedly false

claims for its ‘‘free’’ and fee-based

online services. The Commission’s

proposed complaint alleges:

• Juno falsely represented that

consumers participating in its free trial

periods for its fee-based Internet service

could cancel at any time before the free

trial expired and avoid incurring

charges, and Juno failed to disclose the

restrictive procedures that subscribers

must follow to cancel this service;

• Juno misrepresented the duration of

its free trial offers for its fee-based

service and, in other instances, failed to

disclose that these free trial periods

must be completed within a month;

• Juno misrepresented that there were

no additional costs associated with

using its free Internet service, and failed

to adequately disclose important

information about potential long

distance telephone toll charges (‘‘toll

charges’’) in promoting its free, feebased and free trial period offers;

• Juno failed to adequately disclose in

its advertising for certain rebate

programs both the possibility of

incurring toll charges while using its

fee-based Internet service and

applicable cancellation penalties; and

• Juno misrepresented that its

Internet service was available for

purchase at certain prices, when it was

not, and concurrently misrepresented

the purpose for which it solicited credit

card and other personal identifying

information from consumers

The proposed consent order contains

several provisions designed to prevent

Juno from engaging in similar acts and

practices in the future and requires

redress for certain injured consumers.

Part I of the proposed consent order

prohibits Juno from misrepresenting the

price or cost of any electronic mail,

Internet or other online service

(‘‘Internet services’’). The Part also

prohibits Juno from misrepresenting the

ability or terms by which consumers can

cancel these Internet services, or the

amount of time consumers have to use

these services during a free trial period

before fees are charged. Part I further

prohibits Juno from falsely representing

that Internet service is available for

purchase—when it is not—and from

falsely representing why it requests or

collects credit card or any other

personal identifying information from

consumers.

Part II of the proposed consent order

prohibits Juno from beginning to

compute the billing cycle or free trial

period for its Internet services before the

consumer is able to use these services.

In cases, however, where it is necessary

to provide consumers with a software

upgrade or hardware installment before

they can use these services as

advertised, Juno can comply with this

Part if it clearly and conspicuously

discloses when it will begin to compute

the billing cycle or free trial period for

these consumers before they register for

these services.

Part III of the proposed consent order

requires Juno to clearly and

conspicuously disclose obligations that

consumers have to cancel their Internet

service and the procedures consumers

must follow to effectively cancel their

service.

Part IV of the proposed consent order

requires Juno to provide consumers

with reasonable means to cancel its

Internet services, at a minimum

providing for cancellation through email and a toll-free telephone number.

The Part further requires Juno to

maintain adequate customer support to

promptly handle requests for

cancellation, terminating service before

the next billing cycle.

Parts V and VI of the proposed

consent order require Juno to disclose

clearly and conspicuously potential toll

charges associated with sing its services

and any cancellation penalties.

Part VII of the proposed consent order

requires that Juno provides consumers

with reasonable means to determine the

telephone numbers available for

accessing its Internet services and the

town or city where these numbers are

located—at least making this

information available in a directory

posted on its Web site and through a

toll-free telephone number. The Part

further requires Juno to maintain

adequate customer support to respond

to consumer inquiries about its access

telephone numbers.

Part VIII of the proposed consent

order prohibits Juno from using or

disclosing the personal identifying

information obtained by the company in

connection with its deceptive dry test

advertisements. The Part further

conditions the Commission’s approval

of this consent order on the veracity of

representations made by Juno that: (1)

did not collect credit card numbers

provided by consumers responding to

these dry test advertisements; (2) it has

since deleted any other personal

identifying information that it did

collect from consumers in connection

with these advertisements; and (3) it did

not share this information with any

third party.

Part IX of the proposed consent order

prohibits Juno from providing the

means and instrumentalities for any

third party to violate any provision of

the consent order.

Part X of the proposed consent order

requires Juno to offer reimbursement to

certain consumers for toll charges

incurred in the first two months of

subscribing to its Internet services.

Eligible consumers include those who:

(a) subscribed to Juno’s Internet service

as part of a rebate program that required

the purchase of another product or

service and subscription to respondent’s

Internet services for a period of more

than a month; and (b) cancelled their

subscription and either (i) identified the

unavailability of a local access number

as a reason for the cancellation; or (ii)

complained to Juno about incurring

telephone toll charges. Eligible

consumers are required to supply Juno

with a copy of their telephone bill(s)

reflecting the amount of the toll charges

they incurred. Consumers, however,

who incurred such toll charges at least

18 months prior to the date on which

they mailed their application form, also

can prove their claim with (a) a copy of

a check or other form of payment; or (b)

a written declaration indicating the

amount of the toll charges that they

incurred. Consumers who provide these

alternative proofs of claim are entitled

to receive a reimbursement not to

exceed a maximum dollar amount.

Parts XI through XV of the proposed

consent order are standard record

keeping and compliance provisions.

Part XIII requires that respondent

provides a summary and explanation of

the consent order requirements and the

consent order to all retailers and other

parties who promoted its Internet

services as part of a rebate program. Part

XVI of the proposed consent order

‘‘sunsets’’ the order after twenty years,

with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order. It is not intended to

constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12678 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Findings of Scientific Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

and the Assistant Secretary of Health

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Notices 27975

have taken final action in the following

case: Ayman Saleh, Ph.D., University of

Pittsburgh: Based on the report of an

inquiry conducted by the University of

Pittsburgh and additional analysis

conducted by ORI in its oversight

review, the U.S. Public Health Service

(PHS) found that Dr. Saleh, former

postdoctoral research associate, School

of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh,

engaged in scientific misconduct in

research supported by the National

Institutes of Health.

PHS finds that Dr. Saleh falsified:

(A) Data for a manuscript which

purported to show Western blots of

rabbit Bcl-2 and tubulin; the blots were

actually obtained from different

experiments by another researcher using

antibody against Hsp70 and against Bag1, respectively; (B) The label on a Western blot for

Bcl-2 that he presented to the inquiry

committee as evidence that he had

conducted the experiment at issue; the

blot was actually from a different

experiment by a coworker; (C) Data for a laboratory figure

purported to represent a rabbit PARP

cleavage blot; the data was from another

experiment, and the antibody to PARP

was not available to Dr. Saleh at that

time;

(D) Western blot data on pcasp-9 and

p37/p35 for a manuscript on Hsp27; the

data represented experiments that could

not be performed because the cell lines

were unavailable at the time; and

(E) Figure 2b, the panel that shows a

Western blot of Casp-9(WT) in a

publication by Srinivasa M. Srinivasula,

Ramesh Hegde, Ayman Saleh, Pinaki

Datta, Eric Shiozaki, Jijie Chais, RyungAh Lee, Paul D. Robbins, Theresa

Fernandes-Alnemri, Yigong Shi, and

Emad S. Alnemri. ‘‘A conserved XIAPinteraction motif in caspase-9 and

Smac/DIABLO regulates caspase activity

and apoptosis.’’ Nature 410(6824):112–

116, 2001. The Figure 2b data were

actually taken from a Western blot of

Bcl-XL data, in which Dr. Saleh

transposed the lanes. The experiments examined the

regulation of programmed cell death

(apoptosis), a process that is important

to a better understanding of cancer.

Figure 2b in the Nature paper

represented a control experiment that

confirmed the association of an X-linked

gene to a particular type of apoptosis. Dr. Saleh has entered into a Voluntary

Exclusion Agreement with PHS in

which he has voluntarily agreed for a

period of three (3) years, beginning on

May 3, 2001: (1) To exclude himself from any

contracting or subcontracting with any

agency of the United States Government

and from eligibility for, or involvement

in, nonprocurement transactions (e.g.,

grants and cooperative agreements) of

the United States Government as

defined in 45 CFR Part 76 (Debarment

Regulations);

(2) To exclude himself from serving in

any advisory capacity to PHS, including

but not limited to service on any PHS

advisory committee, board, and/or peer

review committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Director, Division of Investigative

Oversight, Office of Research Integrity,

5515 Security Lane, Suite 700,

Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443–5330.

Chris Pascal,

Director, Office of Research Integrity.

[FR Doc. 01–12681 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150–31–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research

and Quality, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

intention of the Agency for Healthcare

Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) to grant a ‘‘Voluntary Customer

Satisfaction Survey Generic Clearance

for the Agency for Healthcare Research

and Quality.’’ In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)), AHRQ invites the public

to comment on this proposed

information collection request to allow

AHRQ to conduct these customer

satisfaction surveys.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by July 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to: Cynthia D. McMichael,

Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, 2101

East Jefferson Street, Suite 500,

Rockville, MD 20852–4908.

All comments will become a matter of

public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia D. McMichael, AHRQ, Reports

Clearance Officer, (301) 594–3132.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Project

Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Survey

Generic Clearance for the Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality

In response to Executive Order 12862,

the Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality (AHRQ) plans to conduct

voluntary customer satisfaction surveys

to assess strengths and weaknesses in

program services. Customer satisfaction

surveys to be conducted by AHRQ may

include readership surveys from

individuals using AHRQ automated and

electronic technology data bases to

determine satisfaction with the

information provided or surveys to

assess effects of the grants streamlining

efforts. Results of these surveys will be

used in future program planning

initiatives and to redirect resources and

efforts, as needed, to improve AHRQ

program services.

The current clearance will expire

December 31, 2001. A generic approval

will be requested from OMB to conduct

customer satisfaction surveys over the

next three years.

Method of Collection

The data will be collected using a

combination of preferred methodologies

appropriate to each survey. These

methodologies are:

• Evaluation forms;

• Mail surveys;

• Focus groups;

• Automated and electronic

technology (e.g., instant fax, on-line,

feedback forms for AHRQ Clearinghouse

Publications); and

• Telephone surveys.

The estimated annual hour burden is

as follows:

Type of survey

Number

of respondents

Average

burden/

response

(hours

per respondent)

Total

hours

of burden

Mail/Telephone

Surveys ........ 51,200 .15 7,680

Automated/

Web-based .. 52,000 .163 8,476

Focus Groups .. 200 1.0 200

Totals ....... 103,400 .159 16,441

Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) The

necessity of the proposed collections;

(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s

estimate of burden (including hours and

cost) of the proposed collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden of the