Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices 12955

which requires a 60-day public comment period for

Department of Justice antitrust consent orders. The

Tunney Act also provides that the 60-day public

comment period ‘‘shall not be shortened except by

order of the district court upon a showing that (1)

extraordinary circumstances require such

shortening and (2) such shortening is not adverse

to the public interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. § 16(d).

2A hold separate agreement preserves a viable

and competitive business, independent of the

acquirer, in part to ensure the Commission’s ability

to require a divestiture. When the hold separate

agreement expires, the parties are free to

consummate their transaction.

3Expedited treatment for one respondent means

moving that matter to the front of the queue. The

Commission ordinarily has required a showing that

such treatment is warranted.

4The Commission and the public interest would

be disserved to the extent that useful comments

from the public are abbreviated or perhaps not even

submitted because of the shortened public comment

period.

*The consent order was made effective on

August 9, 1965.

1See Sunset Policy Statement, 59 FR at 45,289.

acceptance of the negotiated term

creates an unfortunate precedent. Future

respondents are likely to seek

comparable concessions, increasing

both the public and private costs of law

enforcement negotiations. To the extent

that the order reduces the length of the

period for public comment and no good

cause for that departure from the

Commission’s rules having been shown,

I dissent.

Nor should the commission condone

fixing a date certain for termination of

the hold-separate agreement.2 This

means that to preserve its options, the

Commission must decide the matter by

a date certain, which trivializes the

decisionmaking process. The

Commission can expedite matters and

has done so when appropriate,3 as

consistent with a careful review of the

merits. A willingness to act

expeditiously is quite different from

acquiescing in advance to a ‘‘drop dead

date’’ that may leave the Commission

unable fully to consider issues and

conditions as they may then exist or as

they may be revealed during the public

comment period.4

[FR Doc. 95–5790 Filed 3–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[Dkt. C–411]

The H.D. Lee Co., Inc.; Prohibited

Trade Practices and Affirmative

Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Set aside order.

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1965

consent order—which settled

allegations that the respondent

discriminated in the offering of

advertising or promotional payments to

its customers in connection with the

resale of its wearing apparel—and sets

aside the consent order pursuant to the

Commission’s Sunset Policy Statement,

under which the Commission presumes

that the public interest requires

terminating competition orders that are

more than 20 years old.

DATES: Consent order issued May 1,

1963.* Set aside order issued February

14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roberta Baruch, FTC/S–2115,

Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–2861.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Matter of The H.D. Lee Co., Inc. The

prohibited trade practices and/or

corrective actions are removed as

indicated.

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

or applies sec. 2, 49 Stat. 1526; 25 U.S.C. 13)

In the Matter of The H.D. Lee Co., Inc., a

corporation; Order Reopening Proceeding

and Setting Aside Order.

[Docket No. C–411]

Commissioners: Janet D. Steiger, Chairman

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

Christine A. Varney.

On October 26, 1994, The Lee Apparel

Company, Inc., formerly The H.D. Lee

Co., Inc. (‘‘Lee’’) filed its Petition To

Reopen and Set Aside Consent Order

(‘‘Petition’’) in this matter. Lee requests

that the Commission set aside the 1965

consent order in this matter pursuant to

Rule 1.51 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.51, and the

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, issued July

22, 1994, published at 59 Fed. Reg.

45,286–92 (Sept. 1, 1994) (‘‘Sunset

Policy Statement’’). In the Petition, Lee

affirmatively states that it has not

engaged in any conduct violating the

terms of the order. The Petition was

placed on the public record, and the

thirty-day comment period expired on

December 15, 1994. 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.’’ 1 The Commission’s order in

Docket No. C–411 became final on

August 9, 1965, and has been in effect

for more than twenty-nine 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–411.

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–

411 be, and it hereby is, set aside, as of

the effective date of this order.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5791 Filed 3–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[File No. 951 0012]

Service Corporation International;

Proposed Consent Agreement With

Analysis To Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair acts and practices and unfair

methods of competition—in connection

with Service Corporation International’s

acquisition of Uniservice Corporation—

this consent agreement, accepted subject

to final Commission approval, would

require, among other things, the Texas

corporation to divest, to a Commissionapproved acquirer, the Uniservice

Corporation assets and businesses in

Medford, Oregon, within twelve months

or transfer responsibility for the

divestiture to a trustee appointed by the

Commission, and to obtain prior

Commission approval, for a period of

ten years, before acquiring any interest

in funeral establishments or cemeteries

in Jackson County, Oregon.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

K. Shane Woods or Charles A. Harwood,

FTC/Seattle Regional Office, 915 Second

Ave., Suite 2806, Seattle, WA. 98174.

(206) 220–6350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

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

46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice

is hereby given that the following

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 sixty (60) days. Public comment is

invited. Such comments or views will