10860 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

1See Amerada Hess Corp., 83 F.T.C. 487 (1973).

2The Sunset Policy Statement is published at 59

FR 45,286 (Sept. 1, 1994).

3The fifth respondent named in the order died in

1989.

4Sunset Policy Statement, 59 FR at 45,289.

1Copies of the Complaint, the Decision and

Order, and Commissioner Azcuenaga’s statement

are available from the Commission’s Public

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

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20580.

Management Company, Seneca,

Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire

State Bank of Seneca, Seneca, Missouri.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, February 22, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–4843 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. C–2456]

Amerada Hess Corporation, et al.;

Prohibited Trade Practices and

Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Set Aside Order.

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1973

consent order—which required that the

Clarco Pipe Line be divested and

prohibited Amerada, VGS Corporation

and Clarco Pipe Line Company from

acquiring assets related to the

transportation or refining of crude oil

produced in either Mississippi or

Alabama without prior Commission

approval—and sets aside the consent

order pursuant to the Commission’s

Sunset Policy Statement, under which

the Commission presumes that the

public interest require setting aside

competition orders in effect for more

than 30 years.

DATES: Consent order issued September

18, 1973. Set aside order issued January

3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Ducore, FTC/S–2115,

Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326–

2526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Matter of Amerada Hess Corporation, et

al. The prohibited trade practices and/

or corrective actions are removed as

indicated.

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

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

7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45, 18)

Order Reopening Proceeding and

Setting Aside Order

Commissioners: Janet D. Steiger, Chairman,

Mary L. Azcuenaga, Roscoe B. Starek, III,

Christine A. Varney.

On September 12, 1994, Amerada

Hess Corporation (‘‘Amerada Hess’’)

filed a Request to Reopen and Vacate

Order (‘‘Request’’) in this matter.1

Amerada Hess requests that the

Commission set aside the 1978 consent

order in this matter, pursuant to Rule

2.51 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice, 16 CFR 2.51, and the

Commission’s July 22, 1994, Statement

of Policy with Respect to Duration of

Competition Orders and Statement of

Intention to Solicit Public Comment

with Respect to Duration of Consumer

Protection Orders (‘‘Sunset Policy

Statement’’).2

Leon Hess, also a respondent in this

matter, joined in Amerada Hess’s

Request, by letter dated September 21,

1994. Southland Oil Company,

successor to respondent VGS

Corporation, filed a Statement in

Support of Request to Reopen and

Vacate Order on October 21, 1994. In

addition, on October 20, 1994, Hunt

Refining Company, the purchaser of

assets from respondent Clarco Pipe Line

Company, filed a petition requesting,

among other things, that the

Commission reopen the proceeding and

vacate the order as to Hunt (‘‘Petition’’).

Amerada Hess’s Request, Hunt’s

Petition and the information supplied

by Leon Hess and Southland Oil

Company were placed on the public

record pursuant to Section 2.51 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 16 CFR 2.51.3 No comments

were received.

The Commission in its July 22, 1994,

Sunset Policy Statement said, in

relevant part, that ‘‘effective

immediately, the Commission will

presume, in the context of petitions to

reopen and modify existing orders, that

the public interest requires setting aside

orders in effect for more than twenty

years.’’ 4

The Commission’s order in Docket

No. C–2456 was issued on September

18, 1973, and has been in effect for more

than twenty-one years. Consistent with

the Commission’s July 22, 1994, Sunset

Policy Statement, the presumption is

that the order should be terminated.

Nothing to overcome the presumption

having been presented, the Commission

has determined to reopen the

proceeding and set aside the order in

Docket No. C–2456.

Accordingly, it is ordered that this

matter be, and it hereby is, reopened;

It is further ordered that the

Commission’s order in Docket No. C–

2456 be, and it hereby is, set aside, as

of the effective date of this order.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4861 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[Dkt. C–3553]

Baby Furniture Plus Association, 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 acts and practices and unfair

methods of competition, this consent

order prohibits, among other things, an

Alabama-based buying cooperative and

trade association from taking any action

on behalf of its members, or encouraging

them to take any action, that interferes

with a juvenile product manufacturer’s

decision as to how or to whom to

distribute its products. The consent

order also prohibits the respondent from

coercing—by means of actual or

threatened refusals to deal—any

juvenile products manufacturer to

abandon or adopt—or to refrain from

abandoning or adopting—any marketing

method for its products.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued

January 18, 1995.1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phoebe Morse, Boston Regional Office,

Federal Trade Commission, 101

Merrimac St., Suite 810, Boston, MA.

02114–4719. (617) 424–5960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

Tuesday, November 1, 1994, there was

published in the Federal Register, 59 FR

54601, a proposed consent agreement

with analysis In the Matter of Baby

Furniture Plus Association, 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.