Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 1997 / Notices 5007

4A copy of Netumar’s March 7, 1996 application

to the Brazilian court for enforcement of the award

and an English translation are attached as Exhibit

1 to Ivarans’ Motion. However, no copies of other

pleadings or the court’s order of enforcement are

provided.

participated in the proceeding before

the Brazilian court before entry of the

order of enforcement; whether it has

presented or plans to present to the

Brazilian court the decision of the U.S.

Court of Appeals finding that the

arbitration award was not in accordance

with the Shipping Act of 1984; whether

it presented to the Brazilian court the

Commission’s 1990 order on remand or

Netumar’s own acknowledgment in the

Commission proceeding on remand that

‘‘the arbitral decision was contrary to

the terms of the Pooling Agreement and

could not be enforced by any party

without violating the 1984 Act and/or

the 1916 Act;’’ or whether Ivarans has

appealed the decision of the Brazilian

court.4 Nor does Ivarans raise or address

the issue of present Commission

jurisdiction over Netumar, or the

extraterritorial nature of the relief it

requests.

There is a troubling corollary issue

raised by Ivarans’ argument that the

Commission would be unable to

effectively make an award of reparations

due to Netumar’s U.S. bankruptcy and

the order of the bankruptcy court

bifurcating the proceeding; it is unclear

whether under these circumstances a

cease and desist order issued by the

Commission would be enforceable. We

are also concerned that the issue of

present Commission jurisdiction over

Netumar be addressed.

While Netumar may have acted in

violation of the 1984 Act by seeking to

enforce an unlawful interpretation of

the pooling agreement, Ivarans has not

offered compelling evidence that it has

been damaged by Netumar’s action.

Ivarans has not provided a copy of the

Brazilian court’s order of enforcement

nor any evidence of action by Netumar

to secure attachment or other action

against Ivarans’ assets in Brazil.

Therefore, we are disposed to grant

Ivarans’ Motion only to the extent of reopening the proceeding and allowing

Ivarans an opportunity to present

evidence as to the present status of

proceedings in Brazil (including the

orders of the Brazilian court not

previously provided by Ivarans in

support of its Motion), actual or likely

damages to Ivarans, and what form of

relief it believes the Commission can

effectively grant.

Therefore, it is ordered, That F.M.C.

Docket No. 86–9, A/S Ivarans Rederi v.

Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd

Brasileiro, et al., is re-opened and it is

referred to the Chief Administrative Law

Judge, for assignment and issuance of an

initial decision;

It is further ordered, That the

administrative law judge to whom this

proceeding is assigned shall exercise his

discretion to insure that the issues are

resolved by the most expeditious means

consistent with due process and a

sufficient record upon which to render

a decision;

It is further ordered, That the

following issues be addressed by Ivarans

in the proceeding:

1. Commission jurisdiction over

Netumar;

2. Ivarans’ role in the proceedings in

Brazil and the status of those

proceedings;

3. Damage to Ivarans resulting from

Netumar’s action; and

4. What relief the Commission might

effectively grant.

It is further ordered, That pursuant to

Rule 61 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, 46 C.F.R.

§ 502.61, the initial decision of the

Administrative Law Judge shall be

issued by November 1, 1997 and the

final decision of the Commission shall

be issued by February 28, 1998;

It is further ordered, That notice of

this Order be published in the Federal

Register, and a copy be served on A/S

Ivarans Rederi;

It is further ordered, That other

persons having an interest in

participating in this proceeding may file

petitions for leave to intervene in

accordance with Rule 72 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 46 C.F.R. § 502.72;

It is further ordered, That all further

notices, orders, and decisions issued by

or on behalf of the Commission in this

proceeding, including notice of the time

and place of hearing or prehearing

conference, shall be served on parties of

record; and

It is further ordered, That all

documents submitted by any party of

record in this proceeding shall be

directed to the Secretary, Federal

Maritime Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20573, in accordance with Rule 118

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure, 46 C.F.R. 502.118, and

shall be served on all parties of record.

By the Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2531 Filed 1–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or

Bank Holding Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

notices have been accepted for

processing, they will also be available

for inspection at the offices of the Board

of Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank indicated for that notice

or to the offices of the Board of

Governors. Comments must be received

not later than February 18, 1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas

City, Missouri 64198-0001:

1. Charleen Y. Frerichs, Hildreth,

Nebraska; to acquire an additional 6.8

percent, for a total of 100 percent, of the

voting shares of Hildreth State

Company, Inc., Hildreth, Nebraska, and

thereby indirectly acquire State Bank of

Hildreth, Hildreth, Nebraska.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, January 28, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–2528 Filed 1–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. Once the application has

been accepted for processing, it will also
5008 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 1997 / Notices

1Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and

Order are available from the Commission’s Public

Reference Branch, H–130, 6th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

be available for inspection at the offices

of the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act,

including whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company can ‘‘reasonably

be expected to produce benefits to the

public, such as greater convenience,

increased competition, or gains in

efficiency, that outweigh possible

adverse effects, such as undue

concentration of resources, decreased or

unfair competition, conflicts of

interests, or unsound banking practices’’

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless

otherwise noted, nonbanking activities

will be conducted throughout the

United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than February 27,

1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

(James A. Bluemle, Vice President) 230

South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois

60690-1413:

1. First Equity Corp., Skokie, Illinois;

to become a bank holding company by

acquiring 100 percent of the voting

shares of 1st Equity Bank, Skokie,

Illinois, a de novo bank.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, January 28, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–2527 Filed 1–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Notice of Proposals to Engage in

Permissible Nonbanking Activities or

to Acquire Companies that are

Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking

Activities

The companies listed in this notice

have given notice under section 4 of the

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.

1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation

Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo,

or to acquire or control voting securities

or assets of a company that engages

either directly or through a subsidiary or

other company, in a nonbanking activity

that is listed in § 225.25 of Regulation

Y (12 CFR 225.25) or that the Board has

determined by Order to be closely

related to banking and permissible for

bank holding companies. Unless

otherwise noted, these activities will be

conducted throughout the United States.

Each notice is available for inspection

at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.

Once the notice has been accepted for

processing, it will also be available for

inspection at the offices of the Board of

Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing on the

question whether the proposal complies

with the standards of section 4 of the

BHC Act, including whether

consummation of the proposal can

‘‘reasonably be expected to produce

benefits to the public, such as greater

convenience, increased competition, or

gains in efficiency, that outweigh

possible adverse effects, such as undue

concentration of resources, decreased or

unfair competition, conflicts of

interests, or unsound banking practices’’

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for a

hearing on this question must be

accompanied by a statement of the

reasons a written presentation would

not suffice in lieu of a hearing,

identifying specifically any questions of

fact that are in dispute, summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing, and indicating how the party

commenting would be aggrieved by

approval of the proposal.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding the applications must be

received at the Reserve Bank indicated

or the offices of the Board of Governors

not later than February 18, 1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

(R. Chris Moore, Senior Vice President)

1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio

44101-2566:

1. Banc One Corporation, Columbus,

Ohio; to acquire Banc One Capital

Corporation, Columbus, Ohio, and

thereby engage in underwriting and

dealing to a limited extent in all types

of debt and equity securities. See J.P.

Morgan & Co., Inc., The Chase

Manhattan Corp., Bankers Trust New

York Corp., Citicorp and Security

Pacific Corp., 75 Fed. Res. Bull. 192

(1989).

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, January 28, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–2526 Filed 1–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Docket No. C–3703]

AAF–McQuay, Inc.; Prohibited Trade

Practices, and Affirmative Corrective

Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair or deceptive acts or practices and

unfair methods of competition, this

consent order prohibits, among other

things, a Kentucky-based manufacturer

of residential air filters from making any

representation regarding the

performance, health or other benefits, or

efficacy of air cleaning products, unless

the respondent possesses competent and

reliable scientific evidence to

substantiate such representations.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued

January 6, 1997.1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Milgrom, Federal Trade

Commission, Cleveland Regional Office,

668 Euclid Avenue, Suite 520–A,

Cleveland, OH 44114–3006. (216) 522–

4210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

Monday, October 28, 1996, there was

published in the Federal Register, 61 FR

55641, a proposed consent agreement

with analysis In the Matter of AAF–

McQuay, Inc., for the purpose of

soliciting public comment. Interested

parties were given sixty (60) days in

which to submit comments, suggestions

or objections regarding the proposed

form of the order.

No comments having been received,

the Commission has ordered the

issuance of the complaint in the form

contemplated by the agreement, made

its jurisdictional findings and entered

an order to cease and desist, as set forth

in the proposed consent agreement, in

disposition of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets

or applies sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended;

15 U.S.C. 45)

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2584 Filed 1–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[Dkt. C–3701]

Class Rings, Inc., et al.; Prohibited

Trade Practices, and Affirmative

Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair or deceptive acts or practices and

unfair methods of competition, this

consent order permits Class Rings, Inc.

to acquire L.G. Balfour Company and

prohibits, among other things, Class