17094 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 1995 / Notices

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the

‘‘Advisers Act’’).

2. Applicant has amended the

application to provide that the general

partner will register under the Advisers

Act if required under applicable law.

The amendment also states that the

determination as to whether the general

partner is required to register under the

Advisers Act shall be made by the

general partner and/or its affiliates, and

that the application does not request

relief as to that determination.

3. In all other respects, the

amendment filed on March 23, 1995, is

identical to the application as described

in the Previous Notice. Accordingly, the

Previous Notice sets forth the

representations, legal analysis, and

conditions of the application, save for

the change discussed here.

For the SEC, by the Division of Investment

Management, under delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8144 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 35–26259]

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding

Company Act of 1935, as Amended

(‘‘Act’’)

March 29, 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.

Allegheny Power System, Inc. (70–8583)

Notice of Proposal to Amend Charter;

Order Authorizing Solicitation of

Proxies

Allegheny Power System, Inc.

(‘‘APS’’), 12 East 49th Street, New York,

New York 10017, a registered holding

company, has filed a declaration under

sections 6(a), 7 and 12(e) of the Act and

rules 62 and 65 thereunder.

APS proposes to amend its charter

and to make conforming changes to its

by-laws to (1) eliminate cumulative

voting provisions and (2) eliminate

preemptive rights provisions. APS

proposes to present these amendments

for action by its shareholders at APS’s

annual meeting of shareholders to be

held on May 11, 1995, and seeks

authorization to solicit proxies from

shareholders in connection with this

meeting.

APS proposes to eliminate a provision

in its charter that confers on holders of

APS common stock preemptive rights in

some circumstances. The charter states

that shares of additional APS common

stock or securities convertible into

common stock may be issued without

first being offered to shareholders if

such shares are sold for money in a

public offering, or to or through

underwriters who agree to make a

public offering, or in payment for

property. In other cases, shareholders

have preemptive rights. APS states that

preemptive rights are of little

significance to shareholders, since they

can maintain their proportionate

ownership percentage by purchasing

shares on the open market or through

the APS dividend reinvestment and

stock purchase plan. APS also states

that elimination of these rights will give

APS greater flexibility and reduce the

cost of financings.

APS also proposes to eliminate a

provision in its charter that states that,

at the election of directors, each share

of common stock entitles the holder to

as many votes as the number of shares

held multiplied by the number of

directors to be elected. APS states that

elimination of cumulative voting will

enable the holders of a majority of the

shares of common stock entitled to vote

to elect all of the directors. APS also

states that elimination of cumulative

voting may discourage a merger, tender

offer or proxy contest, assumption of

control by a holder of a large block of

common stock, or removal of incumbent

management.

APS proposes to submit the proposed

amendments for action at its annual

meeting of shareholders to be held May

11, 1995, and to solicit proxies from

shareholders to approve the proposed

amendments. APS states that adoption

of each amendment requires the

affirmative vote of two-thirds of the

holders of outstanding shares of

common stock entitled to vote at the

annual meeting, and that proxies will be

solicited by mail, by officers, directors

and employees of APS personally, by

telephone or by facsimile.

APS has filed with the Commission

its proxy solicitation material and

requests that its declaration with respect

to the solicitation of proxies be

permitted to become effective as

provided in Rule 62(d).

It appearing to the Commission that

APS’s declaration regarding the

proposed solicitation of proxies should

be permitted to become effective

forthwith, pursuant to Rule 62:

It is ordered, that the declaration

regarding the proposed solicitation of

proxies be, and it hereby is, permitted

to become effective forthwith, under

Rule 62, and subject to the terms and

conditions as prescribed in Rule 24

under the Act.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8187 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Interest Rates

The interest rate on Section 7(a) Small

Business Administration direct loans (as

amended by Pub. L. 97–35) and the SBA

share of immediate participation loans

is 87⁄8 percent for the fiscal quarter

beginning April 1, 1995.

On a quarterly basis, the Small

Administration also publishes an

interest rate called the optional ‘‘peg’’

rate (13 CFR 122.8–4 (d)). This rate is a

weighted average cost of money to the

government for maturities similar to the

average SBA loan. This rate may be used

as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating

interest rate SBA loans. For the April–

June quarter of FY 95, this rate will be

77⁄8 percent.

John R. Cox,

Associate Administrator for Financial

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–8149 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 1995 / Notices 17095

Small Business Investment Company

Computation of Alternative Maximum

Annual Cost of Money to Small

Business Concerns

13 CFR 107.302 limits maximum

annual Cost of Money (as defined in 13

CFR 107.3) that may be imposed upon

a Small Concern in connection with

Financing by means of Loans or through

the purchase of Debt Securities. The

cited regulation incorporates the term

‘‘Debenture Rate’’, which is defined

elsewhere in 13 CFR 107.3 in terms that

require SBA to publish, from time to

time, the rate charged on ten-year

debentures sold by Licensees to the

public.

Accordingly, Licensees are hereby

notified that effective the date of

publication of this Notice, and until

further notice, the Debenture Rate for

computation of maximum cost of money

pursuant to 13 CFR 107.302 is 7.84

percent per annum.

13 CFR 107.302 does not supersede or

preempt any applicable law imposing

an interest ceiling lower than the ceiling

imposed by its own terms. Attention is

directed to Section 308(i) of the Small

Business Investment Act of 1958, as

amended, to that law’s Federal override

of State usury ceilings, and to its

forfeiture and penalty provisions.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 59.011, small business

investment companies)

Dated: March 29, 1995.

Robert D. Stillman,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 95–8164 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 93–80; Notice 2]

Babyhood Manufacturing, Inc.;

Mootness of Petition for Determination

of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Babyhood Manufacturing, Inc.

(Babyhood) of Shrewsbury,

Massachusetts determined that some of

its child safety seats failed to comply

with the buckle release force

requirements of 49 CFR 571.213, ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems,’’ Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

213, and filed an appropriate report

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect

and Noncompliance Reports’’.

Babyhood also petitioned to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15

U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) on the basis that the

noncompliance was inconsequential as

it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the petition was

published on November 4, 1993, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (58

FR 58895). No comments were received

on the petition. This notice announces

that the petition has been mooted by

Babyhood’s decision to notify and

remedy according to the statutory

requirements.

Paragraph S5.4.3.5 of FMVSS No. 213

requires in pertinent part that

[A]ny buckle in a child restraint system

belt assembly designed to restrain a child

using the system shall: (a) when tested in

accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic

test * * * shall release when a force of not

more than 14 pounds is applied;

(b) [A]fter the dynamic test of S6.1, when

tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release

when a force of not more than 16 pounds is

applied.

Between January 31, 1992 and June

30, 1993, Babyhood produced

approximately 3,100 child restraint

seats, with shoulder harness straps that

do not comply with the buckle release

requirements of FMVSS No. 213. When

four Babyhood child restraint seats were

tested by the Calspan Corporation for

NHTSA, two of the four units required

forces of 14.3 and 15.9 pounds to release

the buckle, thus failing the requirement

specified in S5.4.3.5(a) of the standard.

The other two complied. Babyhood

performed subsequent tests on buckles

it had in inventory and found that

approximately 25 percent of the buckles

required release forces of over 14

pounds. These belts all complied with

the maximum release force requirement

of 16 pounds after the test.

Subsequent to the close of the

comment period on Babyhood’s

petition, Calspan conducted additional

tests on the buckles in question. These

showed pre- and post-impact release

forces up to 16.8 and 18.2 pounds, far

exceeding the 14 and 16 pound maxima.

Partial engagement tests of the buckle

were conducted by Detroit Testing

Laboratory, and the 5-pound maximum

force limit was exceeded in these tests

as well. Accordingly, on February 6,

1995, Babyhood submitted a further Part

573 Report in which it agreed to

conduct a notification and remedy

campaign covering the 3,100 seats in

question. Thus, the Administrator has

no reason to consider further

Babyhood’s prior request for exemption

from the notification and remedy

provisions, as Babyhood’s action in

filing the new Part 573 Report moots its

earlier petition.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8)

Issued on March 28, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–8232 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P