17840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices

and fair to the unitholders, as not

involving any overreaching of Pitcairn

or its unitholders, and as serving the

broader family purpose by permitting a

complete separation of the Separating

Members. Applicants state that, with

one exception, no person who

participated in the negotiations on

behalf of Pitco or the Remaindermen

have interests on both sides of the

Redemption and the Related

Transaction. One individual partner of

Pitcairn, who has agreed to resign as

such, has been aligned with the

Separating Members and is a general

and limited partner of Johnstone.

Applicants represent that his alignment

with the Separating Members was

recognized, and he was not a member of

the Sellers’ Committee, nor did he

participate in the negotiations except as

a facilitator for the December 1993

meetings. He officially abstained from

voting either on behalf of Pitcairn or

Johnstone with respect to the

Redemption and the Related

Transaction, but has expressed his

support for the transactions.

Applicants’ Legal Conclusions

1. Section 23(c), made applicable to

Pitcairn as a BDC by section 63 of the

Act, generally prohibits BDCs from

purchasing their securities except in the

open market or pursuant to a tender

offer. Absent such circumstances,

section 23(c)(3) allows the SEC to issue

an order for the protection of investors

to ensure that such purchases are made

in a way that does not unfairly

discriminate against any holders of the

class of securities to be purchased.

2. Applicants concede that the

Redemption does not fall within the

exceptions specified in section 23(c);

consequently, Pitcairn must seek

exemptive relief under section 23(c)(3).

Applicants submit that the Redemption

does not unfairly discriminate against

either the Remaindermen or the

Separating Members, and that the

liquidity provided to Johnstone in the

Redemption and the Related

Transaction is not inappropriate under

the circumstances, given the fairness of

the values and the objectives of the

Remaindermen to use the services of

Pitco and PTC as a family office.

3. Section 57(a)(2), in conjunction

with section 57(b), prohibits certain

persons related to a BDC from

purchasing any security or other

property (with the exception of

securities of which the seller is the

issuer) from the BDC or a company

controlled by the BDC. Section 57(b)

provides, in part, that the persons

affected by section 57(a) include any

person that directly or indirectly

controls the BDC. Section 2(a)(9) defines

control as the power to exercise a

controlling influence over the

management or policies of a company,

and establishes a rebuttable

presumption that a person owning more

than 25% of the voting securities of a

company controls that company. Since

Johnstone, which owns approximately

39% of the Units, could be deemed to

control Pitcairn, section 57(a)(2) would

prohibit the Redemption absent an

exemption. As Moreland may be

deemed to be controlled by Pitcairn by

virtue of the fact that Pitco (a whollyowned subsidiary of Pitcairn) is its sole

general partner, section 57(a)(2) also

would prohibit Johnstone from buying

assets from Moreland in the Related

Transaction.

4. Section 57(c) provides that a person

may file an application for an

exemption from the provisions of

section 57(a) (1) through (3), and that

the SEC shall exempt a proposed

transaction from the prohibitions of

section 57(a)(2) if: (a) The terms of the

proposed transaction, including the

consideration to be paid or received, are

reasonable and fair and do not involve

overreaching on the part of anyone

involved; (b) the proposed transaction is

consistent with the policy of the BDC as

set forth in its filings with the SEC

under the Securities Act and the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the

‘‘Exchange Act’’), and its reports to

shareholders or partners; and (c) the

proposed transaction is consistent with

the general purpose of the Act.

5. Applicants submit that the

Redemption and the Related

Transaction meet the standards set forth

in section 57(c) of the Act because: (a)

The terms of the proposed purchase of

assets by Johnstone in the Redemption

and Related Transaction, including the

consideration to be paid, will be

reasonable and fair, and no individual

will derive any personal financial gain

from the proposed transaction other

than benefits that will be realized by all

unitholders of Pitcairn on a pro rata

basis; (b) the proposed Redemption is

consistent with Pitcairn’s policy as set

forth in section 4.13 of the partnership

agreement, which specifically

contemplates the withdrawal of limited

partners on terms approved by the

general partners of Pitcairn (which

approval has been obtained), and also is

consistent with Pitcairn’s policy as

recited in its filings with the SEC under

the Exchange Act and its reports to

unitholders; (c) the Redemption and the

Related Transaction are both consistent

with the general purposes of the Act;

and (d) given the objective of the

Remaindermen to continue to use Pitco

and PTC as a family office for the

management of their financial affairs

and the concomitant desire of the

Separating Members to terminate that

association, it would be impossible to

effect the Redemption by exchanging a

portion of each of Pitcairn’s assets for

the Units held by Johnstone on a pro

rata basis or by selling the Units held by

Johnstone to a third party because no

such market exists.

For the SEC, by the Division of Investment

Management, under delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8543 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 35–26264]

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding

Company Act of 1935, as Amended

(‘‘Act’’)

March 31, 1995.

Notice is hereby given that the

following filing(s) has/have been made

with the Commission pursuant to

provisions of the Act and rules

promulgated thereunder. All interested

persons are referred to the application(s)

and/or declaration(s) for complete

statements of the proposed

transaction(s) summarized below. The

application(s) and/or declaration(s) and

any amendments thereto is/are available

for public inspection through the

Commission’s Office of Public

Reference.

Interested persons wishing to

comment or request a hearing on the

application(s) and/or declaration(s)

should submit their views in writing by

April 24, 1995, to the Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20549, and serve a

copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or

declarant(s) at the address(es) specified

below. Proof of service (by affidavit or,

in case of an attorney at law, by

certificate) should be filed with the

request. Any request for hearing shall

identify specifically the issues of fact or

law that are disputed. A person who so

requests will be notified of any hearing,

if ordered, and will receive a copy of

any notice or order issued in the matter.

After said date, the application(s) and/

or declaration(s), as filed or as amended,

may be granted and/or permitted to

become effective.

Indiana Michigan Power Company (70–

6458)

Indiana Michigan Power Company

(‘‘I&M’’), One Summit Square, P.O. Box

60, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801, an

electric utility subsidiary of American
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices 17841

Electric Power Company, Inc. (‘‘AEP’’),

a registered holding company, has filed

a post-effective amendment to its

application-declaration under Sections

9(a), 10 and 12(d) of the Act and Rule

44(b) thereunder.

By order dated June 11, 1980 (HCAR

No. 21618), I&M was authorized to

dispose of and acquire certain pollution

control systems (‘‘Project’’) at its

Rockport Generating Station (‘‘Plant’’),

under construction near the City of

Rockport in Spencer County, Indiana

(‘‘City’’) to comply with Indiana

environmental control standards. I&M’s

disposition and acquisition was

undertaken under an Agreement of Sale

with the City, dated June 1, 1980, and

in connection with the issuance by the

City of pollution control revenue bonds

in the amount of $40 million to finance

the project (HCAR No. 21642, June 25,

1980). This represented a portion of

I&M’s then estimated cost of $150

million for its 50% obligation for the

Project shared with AEP Generating

Company.

By order dated December 4, 1984

(HCAR No. 23514), the Commission

authorized I&M to enter another

Agreement of Sale with the City

providing for the disposition and

acquisition of the Project in connection

with the issuance by the City of $110

million principal amount of pollution

control bonds (‘‘Series 1984A Bonds’’)

to finance the Project (HCAR No. 23528,

December 12, 1984). By order dated

August 2, 1985 (HCAR No. 23781), the

Commission authorized I&M to enter

into a First Amendment to Agreement of

Sale with the City providing for the

issuance and sale of three additional

series of pollution control bonds

(‘‘Series 1985 Bonds’’), each in the

principal amount of $50 million with a

maturity of August 1, 2014. The second

series of the Series 1985 Bonds consists

of adjustable rate bonds bearing interest

at a rate which is adjusted every five

years based upon an index and payable

semiannually (‘‘Adjustable Rate

Bonds’’).

I&M now proposes to cause the City

to issue and sell a series of refunding

bonds (‘‘Refunding Bonds’’) in the

aggregate principal amount of $50

million with an interest rate adjustment,

as determined by I&M. The proceeds of

Refunding Bonds will be used to redeem

the Adjustable Rate Bonds. I&M could

convert the interest rate on the

Refunding Bonds between the various

modes from changing daily to fixed for

a term up to maturity. The Refunding

Bonds will be issued under and secured

by the Indenture and a sixth

supplemental indenture and will mature

at a date or dates not more than forty

years from the date of issuance.

In connection with the issuance of the

Refunding Bonds, I&M may enter into

one or more interest rate hedging

arrangements, including an interest rate

swap, cap, collar, or similar agreement

(collectively ‘‘Hedging Facility’’) with a

bank or other financial institution

(‘‘Counterparty’’). The Hedging Facility

will be an interest rate conversion

agreement designed to allow I&M to

actively manage and limit its exposure

to variable interest rates or to lower its

overall borrowing cost on any fixed rate

Refunding Bond. The Hedging Facility

will set forth the specific terms upon

which I&M will agree to pay the

Counterparty payments and/or fees for

limiting its exposure to interest rates or

lowering its fixed rate borrowing cost,

and the other terms and conditions of

any rights or obligations thereunder.

I&M may provide credit enhancement

for the Refunding Bonds in the form of

a letter of credit, surety bond or bond

insurance and pay any related fees.

West Penn Power Company (70–6505)

West Penn Power Company (‘‘West

Penn’’), 800 Cabin Hill Drive,

Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601, an

electric public-utility subsidiary

company of Allegheny Power System,

Inc., a registered holding company has

filed a post-effective amendment to its

declaration under Sections 6(a) and 7 of

the Act.

By order dated May 3, 1985 (HCAR

No. 23679), West Penn was authorized,

among other things, to issue long-term

promissory notes in connection with the

issuance of pollution control revenue

bonds series E (‘‘Series E Bonds’’) by the

Washington County Development

Authority (‘‘County’’) up to an aggregate

principal amount of $18 million. The

series E Bonds in the aggregate principal

amount of $15.4 million were issued by

the County, maturing April 1, 2014,

along with West Penn’s corresponding

promissory note for $15.4 million. The

proceeds of the Series E Bonds were

applied by West Penn to the payment at

maturity of the series D bonds and to the

costs of issuance.

Due to changes in interest rates, the

County proposes to refund the Series E

Bonds by issuing a new series of

pollution control revenue bonds

(‘‘Series G Bonds’’). The County

proposes to issue $15.4 million

aggregate principal amount of Series G

Bonds maturing on the corresponding

day in the year 2014 that they are issued

in 1995. The proceeds from the sale of

the Series G Bonds will be used to

refund Series E Bonds. The Series G

Bonds will be issued under a

supplemental trust indenture with a

corporate trustee (‘‘Trustee’’), approved

by West Penn, and will be sold at such

time, interest rate, maturity and price as

approved by West Penn pursuant to

market conditions.

West Penn proposes to issue

concurrently with the issuance of the

Series G Bonds, its non-negotiable

Pollution Control Note (‘‘Note’’), at any

time on or before December 31, 1997,

with terms and conditions

corresponding to the Series G Bonds in

respect to principal amount, interest

rates and redemption provisions and

having installments of principal

corresponding to any mandatory sinking

fund payments and stated maturities.

Market conditions prevailing at the time

of the offering may warrant the issuance

of the Series G Bonds with floating

interest rates during all or a portion of

the stated life of the Series G Bonds.

However, West Penn does not anticipate

that to be the case. West Penn proposes

that should it determine to use a floating

interest rate, it will notify the

Commission.

The Note will be secured by a second

lien on the equipment and facilities at

West Penn’s Mitchell Power Station in

Washington County (‘‘Facilities’’) and

certain other properties, pursuant to the

Mortgage and Security Agreement

delivered by West Penn to the Trustee

creating a mortgage security interest in

the Facilities and certain other property.

Payment on the Note will be made to

the Trustee under and indenture and

applied by the Trustee to pay the

maturing principal and redemption

price of and interest and other costs on

the Series G Bonds as they become due.

West Penn proposes to pay any

Trustees’ fees or other expenses

incurred by the County.

American Electric Power Company,

Inc., et al. (70–7022)

American Electric Power Company,

Inc. (‘‘AEP’’), a registered holding

company, and AEP Generating

Company (‘‘Generating’’), an electric

public-utility subsidiary of AEP, both of

1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Ohio

43215, have filed a post-effective

amendment to their applicationdeclaration filed under sections 9(a), 10,

12(b) and 12(d) of the Act and rules 44

and 45 thereunder.

By order dated August 17, 1984

(HCAR No. 23399), Generating acquired

a 1⁄2 undivided interest in the Rockport

Generating Station (‘‘Plant’’) with

Indiana & Michigan Electric Company,

now Indiana Michigan Power Company

(‘‘I&M’’), also a subsidiary of AEP,

including responsibility for 50% of the

costs associated with acquiring certain
17842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices

air and water pollution control devices

(‘‘Project’’).

By order dated October 4, 1984

(HCAR No. 23445) (‘‘October 1984

Order’’), Generating was authorized to

enter into an Agreement of Sale

(‘‘Agreement’’) with the City of

Rockport, Indiana (‘‘City’’) providing for

the construction and installation of the

Project by the City, and the issuance by

the City of pollution control revenue

bonds (‘‘Series 1984 A Bonds’’) to

finance Generating’s share of the

Project. The October 1984 Order

authorized the issuance of the Series

1984 A Bonds in a principal amount of

$150 million.

The October 1984 Order contemplated

that the proceeds of the sale of the

Series 1984 A Bonds would be

deposited by the City with Lincoln

National Bank and Trust Company of

Fort Wayne, as trustee under an

Indenture of Trust (‘‘Indenture’’) dated

as of October 1, 1984 between the City

and Lincoln National Bank & Trust

Company (now Norwest Bank Fort

Wayne, N.A.), as trustee (‘‘Trustee’’)

between the City and such Trustee,

pursuant to which the Series 1984 A

Bonds are to be issued and secured. The

October 1984 Order also contemplated

that such proceeds would be applied to

payment of the cost of construction of

the project. The Agreement also

provided for the sale of the Project to

Generating, the payment by Generating

of the purchase price of the Project, and

the assignment and pledge to the

Trustee of the City’s interest in, and of

the monies receivable by the City under

the Agreement.

The Agreement also provided that

each installment of the purchase price

for the Project payable by Generating

would be in such amount (together with

other monies held by the Trustee under

the Indenture for that purpose) as would

enable the City to pay, when due and

payable, (i) the interest of the Series

1984 A Bonds, any additional bonds

and any refunding bonds, (ii) the

principal amount of the Series 1984 A

Bonds, any additional bonds and any

refunding bonds payable at the time of

their respective stated maturities and

(iii) amounts, including any accrued

interest, payable in connection with any

mandatory redemption of the Series

1984 A Bonds, any additional Bonds or

any refunding bonds. In addition, the

October 1984 Order reserved

jurisdiction ‘‘with respect to the fees

and commissions to be incurred by

[Generating] and AEP in connection

with this transaction, and the terms of

sale under the Agreement.’’

By order dated September 6, 1985

(HCAR No. 23821) (‘‘1985 Order’’),

Generating was authorized to enter into

a First Amendment to Agreement of

Sale (‘‘1985 Agreement’’) with the City

providing for the issuance and sale of

three additional series of pollution

control bonds (collectively, ‘‘Series 1985

Bonds’’), each in the principal amount

of $55 million with a maturity of

September 1, 2014. One series of the

Series 1985 Bonds was issued with a

variable interest rate (‘‘Variable Rate

Bonds’’) the rate of which was based

upon an index and not to exceed 12%

per annum, determined weekly and

payable monthly. A second series of the

Series 1985 Bonds was issued with the

interest payable semi-annually at a rate

which will be adjusted every five years

based upon an index (‘‘Adjustable

Bonds’’). A third series of the Series

1985 Bonds was issued with the interest

rate fixed at 93⁄8% per annum, payable

semi-annually (‘‘Fixed Rate Bonds’’),

and these Fixed Rate Bonds were issued

subject to optional redemption

following an initial period not to exceed

ten years. The proceeds of the Series

1985 Bonds were used to cover a

portion of the cost of construction of the

Project and to refund the outstanding

short-term Series 1984 A Bonds in the

principal amount of $150 million. The

1985 Order included no reservation of

jurisdiction.

AEP and Generating now propose that

Generating enter into a Second

Amendment to Agreement of Sale

(‘‘1995 Agreement’’) with the City

whereby the City will issue and sell one

or more additional series of Pollution

Control Revenue Refunding Bonds

(‘‘Refunding Bonds’’) in the aggregate

principal amount of up to $110 million

with an interest rate adjustment (as

determined by Generating). Generating

could convert the interest rate on the

Refunding Bonds between the various

modes from changing daily to fixed for

a term up to maturity. It is stated that

the proceeds of such Refunding Bonds

will be used to redeem the Fixed Rate

Bonds and the Adjustable Bonds.

In connection with the issuance of the

Refunding Bonds, Generating proposes

to enter into one ore more interest rate

hedging arrangements (including an

interest rate swap, cap, collar or similar

agreement) (‘‘Hedging Facility’’) with a

bank or other financial institution

(‘‘Counterparty’’). The Hedging Facility

will be an interest rate conversion

agreement designed to allow Generating

to actively manage and limit its

exposure to variable interest rates or to

lower its overall borrowing cost on any

fixed rate Refunding Bond. The Hedging

Facility will set forth the specific terms

upon which Generating will agree to

pay the Counterparty payments and fees

for limiting its exposure to interest rates

or lowering its fixed rate borrowing cost,

and the other terms and conditions of

any rights or obligations thereunder.

The terms of each Hedging Facility

would be negotiated by Generating with

the respective Counterparty and would

be the most favorable terms that can be

negotiated by Generating.

The Refunding Bonds will be issued

pursuant to the Indenture between the

City and the Trustee (now Norwest Bank

Fort Wayne, N.A.), as supplemented by

a Fifth Supplemental Indenture of Trust

between the City and the Trustee

(‘‘Supplemental Indenture’’) and the

1995 Agreement. Pursuant to the

Indenture and the Fifth Supplemental

Indenture, the proceeds of the sale of

the Refunding Bonds will be deposited

with the Trustee and applied by the

Trustee, together with other funds

supplied by Generating, to the

redemption of: (i) The Fixed Rate Bonds

at a price of 102% of the principal

amount thereof; and (ii) the Adjustable

Bonds at a price equal to their principal

amount.

While Generating will not be a party

to the underwriting arrangements for the

Refunding Bonds, the 1995 Agreement

provides that the Refunding Bonds shall

have such terms as shall be specified by

Generating. Generating understands that

interest on the Refunding Bonds will be

exempt from Federal income taxation

under the provisions of section 103 of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

amended (except for interest on any

Refunding Bond during a period in

which it is held by a person who is a

substantial user of the Project or a

related person).

It is expected that the Refunding

Bonds will mature at a date or dates not

more than 40 years from the date of

their issuance. The Refunding Bonds

may be subject to mandatory or optional

redemption under circumstances and

terms specified at the time of pricing or

change in interest rate. In addition, the

Refunding Bonds may not, if it is

deemed advisable, be redeemable at the

option of the city in whole or in part at

ant time for a period to be determined

at the time of pricing or change in

interest rate of the Refunding Bonds. It

is stated that no Refunding Bond may

bear interest at an initial interest rate

higher than 9%.

It is stated that no series of Refunding

Bonds will be issued at rates in excess

of those generally obtained at the time

of pricing for sales of substantially

similar tax-exempt bonds (having the

same maturity, issued by entities of

comparable credit quality and having

similar terms, conditions and features).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices 17843

In connection with an adjustment in

the interest rate, the Refunding Bonds

may be tendered, or may be deemed to

be tendered, to the Trustee, by the

owners thereof. Generating intends to

remarket any Refunding Bonds so

tendered through a remarketing agent,

and may have a Liquidity Provider back

up Generating’s obligations. The

Refunding Bonds will be subject to

redemption at the direction of

Generating under certain circumstances.

AEP and Generating also propose that

Generating provide some form of credit

enhancement for the Refunding Bonds,

a letter of credit, surety bond or bond

insurance, and Generating may pay a fee

in connection therewith. In addition,

Generating may provide for a Liquidity

Provider for interest payments,

remarketing, redemption or maturity of

the Refunding Bonds. Any letter of

credit would not exceed $130 million.

The type of credit enhancement may

change while the Refunding Bonds are

outstanding. Unreimbursed drawings

under the letter of credit would bear

interest at not more than 2% above the

bank’s prime rate. Generating may pay

an annual or up-front fee for the credit

enhancement which would not exceed

1.25% annually of the face amount.

In addition, AEP and Generating

propose that AEP guarantee payment of

the principal of, premium, if any, and

interest on the Refunding Bonds

pursuant to a guaranty agreement

(‘‘Guaranty’’) to be executed and

delivered to the Trustee and the City.

Under a Guaranty, AEP would

unconditionally guarantee the

obligations of Generating under the

1995 Agreement.

The Refunding Bonds could be

payable from funds drawn under an

irrevocable letter of credit, bond

insurance policy, Standby Bond

Purchase Agreement or other

comparable obligation of a third party.

Generating will not agree to the

issuance of any Refunding Bond by the

City if: (i) The stated maturity of any

such Bond shall be more than 40 years;

(ii) the discount from the initial public

offering price of any such Bond shall

exceed 5% of the principal amount

thereof; or (iii) the initial public offering

price shall be less than 95% of the

principal amount thereof. Generating

will not enter into the proposed

refunding transaction unless the

estimated present value savings derived

from the net difference between interest

payments on a new issue of comparable

securities and on the securities to be

refunded is, on a after tax basis, greater

than the present value of all redemption

and issuing costs, assuming an

appropriate discount rate. The discount

rate used shall be the estimated after-tax

interest rate on the Refunding Bonds to

be issued.

AEP and Generating state that the

transactions described above will be

consummated no later than December

31, 1996.

EUA Energy Investment Corporation

(70–8585)

EUA Energy Investment Corporation

(‘‘EEIC’’), P.O. Box 2333, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02107, a wholly owned

subsidiary of Eastern Utilities

Associates (‘‘EUA’’), a registered

holding company, has filed an

application-declaration under sections

6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 12 and 13(b) of the Act

and rules 43, 45, 87, 90 and 91

thereunder.

EEIC proposes to incorporate a

Massachusetts business corporation

(‘‘EEIC Subsidiary’’) to be the general

partner of a proposed joint venture

limited partnership to be formed under

Massachusetts law (‘‘Home & Family’’).

EEIC Subsidiary, through Home &

Family, intends to develop and

commercialize, a home environmental

audit and environmental remediation

business including, but not limited to,

home environmental testing of soil, air,

water and substances found in or about

the home and the remediation of home

environmental problems (the ‘‘Business

Opportunity’’).

EEIC, together with Home & Family

Limited Partnership, a Massachusetts

limited partnership (‘‘H&F LP’’), is

developing certain trademarks,

packaging designs, marketing materials,

copyrighted materials, business plans

and other materials relating to the

Business Opportunity (‘‘Proprietary

Materials’’). EEIC owns all right, title

and interest in and to the Proprietary

Materials. EEIC proposes to contribute

such Proprietary Materials to EEIC

Subsidiary in exchange for capital stock

in EEIC Subsidiary. No other person or

entity will own stock in EEIC

Subsidiary.

Upon (i) EEIC’s receipt of Commission

authorization, and (ii) EEIC‘s

determination to proceed with the

Business Opportunity following

successful completion of a research,

development and test marketing pilot

program, H&F LP will contribute the

name ‘‘Home & Family,’’ its intellectual

property and other proprietary materials

to Home & Family in exchange for a

limited partner interest therein. EEIC,

proposes to then transfer the Proprietary

Materials, with an agreed upon value of

$2,100,000, to Home & Family and to

provide certain financing (described

below) to Home & Family in exchange

for a general partner interest therein.

The initial authorized capitalization

of EEIC Subsidiary shall be 200,000

shares of common stock, $.01 par value

per share, and EEIC will be issued a

portion of such common stock in

exchange for its contribution to EEIC

Subsidiary of the Proprietary Materials.

References to EEIC hereinafter shall

mean EEIC or EEIC Subsidiary, where

the context so allows.

EEIC proposes to make additional

capital contributions to Home & Family

in an aggregate amount of up to

$3,900,000 from time to time through

December 31, 1997, in exchange for

which EEIC’s capital interest in Home &

Family will increase correspondingly. In

addition, from time to time through

December 31, 1997, EEIC also proposes,

at its discretion, to provide Home &

Family with a working capital line of

credit with a maximum availability of

$3,000,000, at an annual interest rate

equal to the base lending rate of The

First National Bank of Boston, N.A.,

plus 2 percent, for a term of three years.

All such loans and advances will be

secured by all Home & Family assets,

and will be used by Home & Family

exclusively for its working capital

needs.

EEIC also proposes that any activities

that it needs to perform under certain

agreements relating to the proposed

transaction would be accomplished by

employees of EUA Service Corporation

(‘‘EUASC’’). EUASC may provide

management services including but not

limited to financial, accounting,

environmental, data processing and

records management services, as

appropriate, to Home & Family. All such

services would be rendered at cost

pursuant to the standard service

contract entered into between EUASC

and the other EUA system companies.

No employees of the EUA system’s retail

electric utilities will be assigned to any

activities involving Home & Family.

The East Ohio Gas Company (70–8601)

The East Ohio Gas Company (‘‘East

Ohio’’), 1717 East Ninth Street,

Cleveland, Ohio 44101–0759, a gas

public-utility subsidiary of Consolidated

Natural Gas Company (‘‘CNG’’), 625

Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania 15222–3199, a registered

holding company, and CNG have filed

a declaration under section 12(d) of the

Act and rule 44 thereunder.

East Ohio and CNG propose that East

Ohio sell certain utility assets

(‘‘Assets’’), including 378 production

wells, connecting lines, leases, access

rights, contract rights and records

associated with the wells, to Belden &

Blake Corporation (‘‘Belden & Blake’’)

for $6.5 million. Belden & Blake is a
17844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices

nonassociated oil and gas drilling and

exploration company.

East Ohio and CNG state that the sale

of the Assets is part of East Ohio’s

contribution towards the current effort

of the CNG system to cut costs and

increase profits. East Ohio and CNG

additionally state that, as utility assets,

the Assets provide less than 1⁄2 of 1% of

East Ohio’s total gas supply.

Furthermore, by selling the Assets, East

Ohio will save about $900,000 a year in

maintenance costs.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8542 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster

Loan Area #8499]

Massachusetts (and Contiguous

Counties in Connecticut); Declaration

of Disaster Loan Area

Hampden County and the contiguous

counties of Berkshire, Hampshire, and

Worcester in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and Hartford, Litchfield,

and Tolland in the State of Connecticut

constitute an economic injury disaster

area as a result of damages caused by a

fire which occurred on January 17, 1995

in the town of Palmer, Massachusetts.

Eligible small businesses without credit

available elsewhere and small

agricultural cooperatives without credit

available elsewhere may file

applications for economic injury

assistance until the close of business on

January 3, 1996 at the address listed

below: U.S. Small Business

Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office,

360 Rainbow Blvd. South, 3rd Floor,

Niagara Falls, NY 14303 or other locally

announced locations. The interest rate

for eligible small businesses and small

agricultural cooperatives is 4 percent.

The economic injury number assigned to

this disaster for the State of Connecticut is

850000.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 59002)

Dated: April 3, 1995.

Philip Lader,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8574 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES

Social Security Administration

Agency Forms Submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget for

Clearance

Normally on Fridays, the Social

Security Administration publishes a list

of information collection packages that

have been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance in compliance with Public

Law 96–511, The Paperwork Reduction

Act. The following clearance packages

have been submitted to OMB since the

last list was published in the Federal

Register on March 10, 1995.

(Call Reports Clearance Officer on (410)

965–4142 for copies of package.)

1. Subpoena-Disability Hearing—

0960–0428. The information on form

SSA–1272 is used by the Social Security

Administration to subpoena evidence or

testimony needed in disability hearings.

The respondents are comprised of

Federal and State disability

determinations services officers.

Number of Respondents: 36

Frequency of Response: 1

Average Burden Per Response: 30

minutes

Estimated Annual Burden: 18 hours

2. Agency/Employer Questionnaire—

0960–0470. The information on form

SSA–4163 is used by the Social Security

Administration to determine the need

for and the amount of any offset of

benefits for certain individuals receiving

government pensions and also receiving

or applying for Social Security benefits.

The respondents are State governments

or political subdivisions thereof.

Number of Respondents: 1,000

Frequency of Response: 1

Average Burden Per Response: 3

minutes

Estimated Annual Burden: 50 hours

3. Response to Notice of Revised

Determination—0960–0347. The

information on form SSA–765 is used

by claimants to request a disability

hearing and/or to submit additional

information before a revised

reconsideration determination is issued.

The respondents are claimants for

disability insurance benefits.

Number of Respondents: 1,925

Frequency of Response: 1

Average Burden Per Response: 30

minutes

Estimated Annual Burden: 963 hours

4. Notification of Projected

Completion Date—0960–NEW. The form

SSA–891 is used by the Social Security

Administration and the State disability

determination services to notify

disability hearings units (DHU) that a

specific hearing case will not be

completed and forwarded to the DHU as

originally scheduled. The respondents

are State disability determination

services staffs.

Number of Respondents: 20

Frequency of Response: 1

Average Burden Per Response: 5

minutes

mated Annual Burden: 2 hours

5. Student’s Statement Regarding

Resumption of School Attendance—

0960–0143. The information on form

SSA–1386 is used by the Social Security

Administration to verify full-time

attendance at educational institutions

and to determine eligibility for student

benefits. The respondents are student

beneficiaries currently receiving SSA

benefits.

Number of Respondents: 133,000

Frequency of Response: 1

Average Burden Per Response: 6

minutes

Estimated Annual Burden: 13,300 hours

6. Authorization for the Social

Security Administration to Obtain

Account Records from a Financial

Institution and Request for Records—

0960–0293. The information on form

SSA–4641 is used by the Social Security

Administration to determine whether an

applicant meets the resources eligibility

requirements for Supplemental Security

Income and Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC). In the

AFDC program, this information is used

only as part of the quality review of the

program. The respondents are financial

institutions.

Number of Respondents: 500,000

Frequency of Response: 1

Average Burden Per Response: 6

minutes

Estimated Annual Burden: 50,000 hours

7. Statement of Household Expenses

and Contributions—0960–0456. The

information on form SSA–8011 is used

by the Social Security Administration

(SSA) to obtain or corroborate the

household expenses and contributions

the claimant/recipient makes toward the

expenses. SSA needs the information to

correctly determine the amount of

unearned income received by the

claimant/recipient in order to determine

the individual’s eligibility and payment

amount under the SSI program. The

respondents are household members of

SSI claimants/recipients.

Number of Respondents: 400,000

Frequency of Response: 1

Average Burden Per Response: 15

minutes

Estimated Annual Burden: 100,000

hours