9866 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices

and its dealers’ conduct can become

clearly legal, Playmobil has agreed not

even to accept such communications

from its dealers for five years.

Section IV E of the Final Judgment

prohibits Playmobil from establishing a

cooperative advertising program that

conditions rebates in any way upon a

dealer’s adherence to certain advertising

price levels. Playmobil did not have a

cooperative advertising program, but its

illegal price agreements with dealers

were often triggered by advertising. In

order to avoid any discussions at all

with dealers on the sensitive issue of

retail pricing, Playmobil has also agreed

not to undertake a cooperative

advertising program during the first five

years of the decree. This will provide a

period of time during which market

conditions can become more

competitive, and Playmobil and its

dealers can become more accustomed to

remaining within legal parameters.

Section V of the proposed Final

Judgment is designed to ensure that

Playmobil’s dealers are aware of the

limitations the Final Judgment imposes

on Playmobil. Section V requires

Playmobil to send notices and copies of

the Judgment to each dealer who

purchased Playmobil products from the

defendant in 1993 or 1994. In addition,

Playmobil must send notices and copies

of the Judgment to every other dealer to

which it sells Playmobil products

within ten years of the date of the

Judgment’s entry.

Sections VI and VII require Playmobil

to set up an antitrust compliance

program and designate an antitrust

compliance officer. Under the program,

Playmobil is required to furnish a copy

of the Judgment and a less formal

written explanation of it to each of its

officers and directors and each of its

non-clerical employees, representatives,

or agents responsible for the sale or

advertising of Playmobil products in the

United States.

In addition, the proposed Final

Judgment provides methods for

determining and securing Playmobil’s

compliance with its terms. Section VIII

provides that, upon request of the

Department of Justice, Playmobil shall

submit written reports, under oath, with

respect to any of the matters contained

in the Judgment. Additionally, the

Department of Justice is permitted to

inspect and copy all books and records,

and to interview officers, directors,

employees and agents, of Playmobil.

Section IX makes the Judgment

effective for ten years from the date of

its entry.

Section XI of the proposed Final

Judgment states that entry of the

Judgment is in the public interest. The

APPA conditions entry of the proposed

Final Judment upon a determination by

the Court that the proposed Final

Judgment is in the public interest.

The Government believes that the

proposed Final Judgment is fully

adequate to prevent the continuation or

recurrence of the violation of section 1

of the Sherman Act alleged in the

Complaint, and that disposition of this

proceeding without further litigation is

appropriate and in the public interest.

IV

Remedies Available to Potential Private

Litigants

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15

U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who

has been injured as a result of conduct

prohibited by the antitrust laws may

bring suit in federal court to recover

three times the damages the person has

suffered, as well as costs and reasonable

attorney fees. Entry of the proposed

Final Judgment will neither impair nor

assist the bringing of any private

antitrust damage action. Under the

provisions of section 5(a) of the Clayton

Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final

Judgment has no prima facie effect in

any subsequent private lawsuit that may

be brought against the defendant.

V

Procedures Available for Modification of

the Proposed Final Judgment

The United States and the defendant

have stipulated that the proposed Final

Judgment may be entered by the Court

after compliance with the provisions of

the APPA, provided that the United

States has not withdrawn its consent.

The APPA provides a period of at

least 60 days preceding the effective

date of the proposed Final Judgment

within which any person may submit to

the United States written comments

regarding the proposed Final Judgment.

Any person who wants to comment

should do so within 60 days of the date

of publication of this Competitive

Impact Statement in the Federal

Register. The United States will

evaluate the comments, determine

whether it should withdraw its consent,

and respond to the comments. The

comments and the response of the

United States will be filed with the

Court and published in the Federal

Register.

Written comments should be

submitted to: Rebecca P. Dick, Chief,

Civil Task Force I, U.S. Department of

Justice, Antitrust Division, 1401 H

Street NW., Room 3700, Washington,

DC 20530.

Under Section X of the proposed

Judgment, the Court will retain

jurisdiction over this matter for the

purpose of enabling either of the parties

to apply to the Court for such further

orders or directions as may be necessary

or appropriate for the construction,

implementation, modification, or

enforcement of the Judgment, or for the

punishment of any violations of the

Judgment.

VI

Alternatives to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The only alternative to the proposed

Final Judgment considered by the

Government was a full trial on the

merits and on relief. Such litigation

would involve substantial cost to the

United States and is not warranted,

because the proposed Final Judgment

provides appropriate relief against the

violations alleged in the Complaint.

VII

Determinative Materials and Documents

No particular materials or documents

were determinative in formulating the

proposed Final Judgment.

Consequently, the Government has not

attached any such materials or

documents to the proposed Final

Judgment.

Dated:

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce K. Yamanaga,

Andrew S. Cowan,

Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street NW., Room

3700, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514–8368.

[FR Doc. 95–4283 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration;

Petitions for Modification

The following parties have filed

petitions to modify the application of

mandatory safety standards under

section 101(c) of the Federal Mine

Safety and Health Act of 1977.

1. Serendipity Mining, Inc.

[Docket No. M–95–01–C]

Serendipity Mining, Inc., P.O. Box

1588, Barbourville, Kentucky 40906 has

filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 75.342 (methane

monitors) to its No. 4 Mine (I.D. No. 15–

17568) located in Whitley County,

Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to

monitor continuously with a hand-held

methane and oxygen detector instead of

using a methane monitoring system on

permissible three-wheel tractors with
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices 9867

drag bottom buckets. The petitioner

asserts that the proposed alternative

method would provide at least the same

measure of protection as would the

mandatory standard.

2. Windsor Coal Company.

[Docket No. M–95–02–C]

Windsor Coal Company, P.O. Box 39,

West Liberty, West Virginia 26074 has

filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 75.364(b)(1) and

(2) (weekly examination) to its Windsor

Mine (I.D. No. 46–01286) located in

Brooke County, West Virginia. Due to

deteriorating roof and rib conditions in

the left side return air course of the East

Mains from the 0+00 to 66+00 for a

distance of approximately 6,600 feet,

traveling or restoration of the affected

area would be unsafe. The petitioner

proposes to examine the area on a

weekly basis by establishing check

points G—No. 1 entry at approximately

0+50, and H—No. 1 entry at

approximately 66+00; to examine the 1

North bleeder seal, 1 North seals, East

Main seals, and 2 North seals (22 seals

total); to have a certified person test for

methane and the quantity of air at all

check points on a weekly basis and

record the results in a book kept on the

surface and made available for

inspection by interested persons; to

install stoppings at the equalizing

overcasts at approximately 23+00 and

65+00 to prevent the mixing of right

side and left side returns; and to install

a stopping at approximately 0+50 in the

No. 2 entry to direct all air to check

point ‘‘G’’. The petitioner asserts that

the proposed alternative method would

provide at least the same measure of

protection as would the mandatory

standard.

3. Rosebud Mining Company.

[Docket No. M–95–03–C]

Rosebud Mining Company, Box 324

B, R.D. 2, Parker, Pennsylvania 16049

has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 75.333

(ventilation controls) to its Rosebud No.

3 Mine (I.D. No. 36–07843) located in

Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The

petitioner proposes to use temporary

ventilation controls on the intake side in

the room necking procedure for rooms

to be developed less than 600 feet. The

petitioner asserts that the proposed

alternative method would provide at

least the same measure of protection as

would the mandatory standard.

4. R. & R. Anthracite Coal Company.

[Docket No. M–95–04–C]

R. & R. Anthracite Coal Company, R.

R. 2, Box 21 B, Hegins, Pennsylvania

17938 has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 75.1400 (hoisting

equipment; general) to its Buck Mt.

Slope (I.D. No. 36–08498) located in

Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.

Because of steep, frequently changing

pitch and numerous curves and

knuckles in the main haulage slope, the

petitioner proposes to use the gunboat

without safety catches in transporting

persons. As an alternative, when using

the gunboat to transport persons, the

petitioner proposes to use hoisting rope

with a safety factor at least 3 times

greater than required and secondary

safety connections which are securely

fastened around the gunboat and to the

hoisting rope above the main

connection device. The petitioner

asserts that the proposed alternative

method would provide at least the same

measure of protection as would the

mandatory standard.

5. Consolidation Coal Company.

[Docket No. M–94–05–C]

Consolidation Coal Company, Consol

Plaza, 1800 Washington Road,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15241 has

filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 75.1002 (location

of trolley wires and trolley feeder wires,

high-voltage cables and transformers) to

its Buchanan Mine (I.D. No. 44–04856)

located in Buchanan County, Virginia.

The petitioner proposes to use highvoltage cables (4,160 volts) in by the last

open crosscut. The petitioner states that

application of the mandatory standard

would result in a diminution of safety

to the miners. In addition, the petitioner

asserts that the proposed alternative

method would provide at least the same

measure of protection as would the

mandatory standard.

6. C. S. & S. Coal Corporation.

[Docket No. M–95–06–C]

C. S. & S. Coal Corporation, P.O. Box

1234, Grundy, Virginia 24614 has filed

a petition to modify the application of

30 CFR 75.1710 (canopies or cabs;

electric face equipment) to its No. 7

Mine (I.D. No. 44–06762) located in

Russell County, Virginia. The petitioner

proposes to operate electric mobile

equipment without canopies in seam

heights up to 48 inches. The petitioner

asserts that the proposed alternative

method would not result in a

diminution of safety to the miners.

7. Texasgulf, Inc.

[Docket No. M–95–01–M]

Texasgulf, Inc., P.O. Box 171,

Weeping Water, Nebraska 68463 has

filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 57.11041

(landings for inclined ladderways) to its

Limestone Mine (I.D. No. 25–00554)

located in Cass County, Nebraska. The

petitioner proposes to have two portals

at the mine to serve as the primary and

secondary escapeways. The petitioner

proposes to have a vertical vent shaft 36

inches in diameter and 125 feet tall as

an auxiliary escapeway for a extra safety

measure in case the primary and

secondary portals become blocked; and

as an additional escapeway, the

petitioner proposes to install a ladder

with rungs 8 inches from the wall to the

center of the rung and with a 15 inch

x 10 inch step off point every 20 feet.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed

alternative method would provide at

least the same measure of protection as

would the mandatory standard.

8. Aluminum Company of America

[Docket No. M–95–02–M]

Aluminum Company of America,

State Highway 35, Point Comfort, Texas

77978 has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 56.9300 (berms or

guardrails) to its Bayer Alumina Plant

(I.D. No. 41–00320) located in Calhoun

County, Texas. The petitioner requests a

modification of the mandatory standard

to allow continued use of its already

established methods of compliance of

having signs posted at the entrances to

the impoundment area stating that the

roadways are not bermed; delineators at

25 feet intervals along the perimeter of

the elevated roadways; the maximum

speed limit posted at 15 mph on the

elevated roadways; road surfaces well

maintained with necessary repairs

following periods of inclement weather.

The petitioner has a locked, remotely

operated electric gate at the main

entrance to the impoundment area with

24 hour security, 7 days a week via

closed circuit camera and TV monitor.

Access to the gate is by permission only

via telephones which are located

outside the gate, or by two-way radios

for maintenance personnel. The

petitioner states that application of the

mandatory standard would result in a

diminution of safety to the miners. In

addition, the petitioner asserts that the

proposed alternative method would

provide at least the same measure of

protection as would the mandatory

standard.

Request for Comments

Persons interested in these petitions

may furnish written comments. These

comments must be filed with the Office

of Standards, Regulations and

Variances, Mine Safety and Health

Administration, Room 627, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

All comments must be postmarked or
9868 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Notices

received in that office on or before

March 24, 1995. Copies of these

petitions are available for inspection at

that address.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

Patricia W. Silvey,

Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and

Variances.

[FR Doc. 95–4228 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Use of Alternative Means of Dispute

Resolution; Policy Statement

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of policy statement.

SUMMARY: The National Science

Foundation (the ‘‘Foundation’’) has

developed a policy to address the use of

alternative means of dispute resolution

(ADR) within its administrative

programs, as required by the

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act,

Public Law No. 101–552.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy statement is

effective on February 22, 1995. Because

it is a general statement of policy and

addresses internal agency procedures

and practices, no prior notice or

opportunity for public comment is

required.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence Rudolph, Acting General

Counsel and National Science

Foundation Dispute Resolution

Specialist, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Room 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230,

(703) 306–1060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 15, 1990, Congress enacted

the Administrative Dispute Resolution

Act (Public Law No. 101–552). The Act

requires agencies to designate a senior

official as its dispute resolution

specialist and to adopt a policy

addressing use of ADR in connection

with an agency’s administrative

programs. Although the Act authorizes

and encourages agencies to use ADR

techniques as an alternative to

traditional dispute resolution

mechanisms, use of ADR is subject to

agency discretion.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This policy statement contains no

information collection requirements and

therefore is not subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et. seq.)

Foundation Policy on ADR

The Foundation encourages the use of

alternative methods of dispute

resolution within its administrative

programs. These methods, which

include settlement negotiations,

conciliation, facilitation, mediation,

fact-finding, mini-trials and arbitration,

provide alternatives to traditional

adversarial proceedings. ADR

techniques should be implemented in a

way that will reduce costs and delays

associated with adjudication, improve

employee and constituent relations, and

improve the efficiency and effectiveness

of programs.

An ADR Task Force reviewed the

types of disputes arising at NSF and the

Foundation’s procedures for resolving

them. The Task Force concluded that

existing informal mechanisms for

resolving disputes between NSF and

grantees are effective and consistent

with ADR processes. However, the Task

Force did identify one type of dispute

which could benefit from the use of

ADR techniques—employee

discrimination complaints related to

equal employment opportunity. As a

result, NSF will implement a voluntary

mediation program for resolution of

employment discrimination complaints

filed by NSF employees, and will either

train Foundation employees to mediate

such disputes or rely on an intergovernmental pool of mediators. The

Foundation will make every effort to

ensure the confidentiality of

information provided to all participants

in an ADR proceeding, consistent with

applicable laws and regulations.

As circumstances change or new

types of disputes arise, the Foundation

will consider further use of ADR

techniques. The Foundation encourages

senior management officials to discuss

other situations where ADR may be

appropriate with NSF’s Deputy General

Counsel, who serves as the Foundation’s

Dispute Resolution Specialist.

Dated: February 14, 1995.

Lawrence Rudolph,

Acting General Counsel and Agency Dispute

Resolution Specialist.

[FR Doc. 95–4221 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Planning and Procedures; Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning

and Procedures will hold a meeting on

March 8, 1995, Room T–2B1, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance, with the exception of

a portion that may be closed pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss

organizational and personnel matters

that relate solely to internal personnel

rules and practices of ACRS, and

matters the release of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows: Wednesday, March

8, 1995—9:00 a.m.–12 noon.

The Subcommittee will discuss

proposed ACRS activities and related

matters. Also, it will discuss status of

the appointment of members to the

ACRS. The purpose of this meeting is to

gather information, analyze relevant

issues and facts, and to formulate

proposed positions and actions, as

appropriate, for deliberation by the full

Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff person named

below five days prior to the meeting, if

possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, the scheduling of

sessions open to the public, whether the

meeting has been cancelled or

rescheduled, the Chairman’s ruling on

requests for the opportunity to present

oral statements, and the time allotted

therefor can be obtained by contacting

the cognizant ACRS staff person, Dr.

John T. Larkins (telephone: 301/415–

7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

(EST). Persons planning to attend this

meeting are urged to contact the above

named individual on the working day

prior to the meeting to be advised of any

changes in schedule, etc., that may have

occurred.

Dated: February 13, 1995.

Sam Duraiswamy,

Chief, Nuclear Reactors Branch.

[FR Doc. 95–4262 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Regulatory Guide; Extension of

Comment Period

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has extended the public comment

period on Draft Regulatory Guide DG–

0005, ‘‘Applications for Licenses of

Broad Scope,’’ until March 31, 1995, to