8766 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Notices

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses. Since the Commission has

made a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration, if a hearing is

requested, it will not stay the

effectiveness of the amendment. Any

hearing held would take place while the

amendment is in effect.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to (Project

Director): petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to the attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for a hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that

the petition and/or request should be

granted based upon a balancing of the

factors specified in 10 CFR

2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station,

Nemaha County, Nebraska

Date of amendment request: July 26,

1994, as supplemented by letters dated

December 27, 1994, and January 27,

1995.

Brief description of amendment: The

amendment changed the Technical

Specification Section 3/4.12.A to allow

for increased flow capacity of the

control room emergency filter system.

By increasing the maximum allowed

makeup capacity of this system,

additional margin is provided for the

positive pressurization of the control

room envelope.

Date of issuance: January 27, 1995.

Effective date: January 27, 1995.

Amendment No.: 167.

Facility Operating License No. DPR–

46. Amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.

Public comments requested as to

proposed no significant hazards

consideration: No.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendment, finding of emergency

circumstances, and final determination

of no significant hazards consideration

are contained in a Safety Evaluation

dated

Local Public Document Room

location: Auburn Public Library, 118

15th Street, Auburn, Nebraska 68305.

Attorney for licensee: Mr. G.D.

Watson, Nebraska Public Power District,

Post Office Box 499, Columbus,

Nebraska 68602–0499.

NRC Project Director: William D.

Beckner.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Deputy Director, Division of Reactor

Projects—III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3629 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Rel. No. IC–20893; 811–3095]

Pacific American Fund; Notice of

Application

February 9, 1995.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for

deregistration under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’).

APPLICANT: Pacific American Fund.

RELEVANT ACT SECTION: Section 8(f).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant

seeks an order declaring that it has

ceased to be an investment company.

FILING DATES: The application on Form

N–8F was filed on January 11, 1995.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicant with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on

March 6, 1995, and should be

accompanied by proof of service on the

applicant, in the form of an affidavit or,

for lawyers, a certificate of service.

Hearing requests should state the nature

of the writer’s interest, the reason for the

request, and the issues contested.

Persons who wish to be notified of a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Notices 8767

hearing may request notification by

writing to the SEC’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549.

Applicant, 800 West Sixth Street, Suite

1000, Los Angeles, California 90017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Kay Frech, Senior Attorney, at

(202) 942–0579, or Barry D. Miller,

Senior Special Counsel at (202) 942–

0564 (Division of Investment

Management, Office of Investment

Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application. The complete application

may be obtained for a fee at the SEC’s

Public Reference Branch.

Applicant’s Representations

1. Applicant is a diversified open-end

management investment company

organized as a Massachusetts business

trust. On September 24, 1980, applicant

filed a notification of registration

pursuant to section 8(a) of the Act, and

a registration statement on Form N–1

under section 8(b) of the Act and the

Securities Act of 1933. Applicant

commenced its initial public offering on

April 15, 1981.

2. On July 20, 1994, applicant’s board

of trustees approved an agreement and

plan of reorganization (the ‘‘Plan’’)

between applicant and Pacifica Funds

Trust (the ‘‘Trust’’), a registered openend management company. The Plan

provided for the reorganization of

applicant’s Money Market Portfolio and

U.S. Treasury Portfolio (the

‘‘Portfolios’’) as corresponding new

portfolios of the Trust. Under the Plan,

all of the assets and liabilities of the

Portfolios would be transferred to the

corresponding Money Market Portfolio

and U.S. Treasury Portfolio of the Trust

(the ‘‘New Portfolios’’) in exchange for

the number of shares of the New

Portfolios equal to the number of shares

outstanding in the Portfolios.

3. According to applicant’s proxy

statement dated September 1, 1994, the

trustees considered various factors in

approving the reorganization, including,

(a) the elimination of duplicate costs

incurred for services that are performed

for both applicant and the Trust

separately, (b) the potential

improvement of trading and operational

efficiencies through the combination of

the mutual fund groups, (c) economies

of scale to be realized primarily with

respect to fixed expenses, (d) the

availability of additional investment

portfolios of the Trust to applicant’s

shareholders after the reorganization,

and (e) the enhancement of the

distribution of the New Portfolio shares

to potential investors. Applicant’s

trustees also determined that the sale of

applicant’s assets to the New Portfolios

of the Trust was in the best interests of

applicant’s shareholders, and that the

interests of the existing shareholders

would not be diluted as a result.

4. Proxy materials soliciting

shareholder approval of the

reorganization were distributed to

applicant’s shareholders during the first

week of September, 1994. Definitive

copies of the proxy materials were filed

with the SEC on September 6, 1994.

Applicant’s shareholders approved the

reorganization at a special meeting held

on September 27, 1994.

5. As of September 30, 1994,

applicant’s Money Market Portfolio had

565,408,253.15 shares outstanding,

having an aggregate net asset value of

$565,305,165 and a per share net asset

value of $1.00 (based on the amortized

cost valuation method), and applicant’s

U.S. Treasury Portfolio had

690,630,344.65 shares outstanding,

having an aggregate net asset value of

$690,630,344.65 and a per share net

asset value of $1.00. On October 1, 1994,

pursuant to the Plan, the assets and

liabilities of the Portfolios were

transferred to the corresponding New

Portfolios. The aggregate net asset value

of the New Portfolios’ shares received

are equal to the net asset value of

applicant’s shares held. Applicant then

distributed the New Portfolios’ shares it

received pro rata to its shareholders, in

complete liquidation of applicant.

6. No brokerage commissions were

paid in connection with the

reorganization. The expenses applicable

to the Plan, consisting of legal, state

registration, and filing fees and printing

expenses, were approximately $70,000

and were allocated to applicant and the

New Portfolios.

7. As of the date of the application,

applicant had no shareholders, assets, or

liabilities. Applicant is not a party to

any litigation or administrative

proceedings. Applicant is not engaged

in, nor does it propose to engage in, any

business activities other than those

necessary for the winding up of its

affairs.

8. Applicant intends to file a

certificate of termination with the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

For the SEC, by the Division of Investment

Management, under delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3700 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 94–64; Notice 2]

Accuride Corporation; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Accuride Corporation (Accuride) of

Henderson, Kentucky, determined that

some of its wheels fail to comply with

49 CFR 571.120, Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, ‘‘Tire

Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other

Than Passenger Cars,’’ and filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ Accuride also applied to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’

on the basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on July 28, 1994, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (59

FR 38503).

Paragraph S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120

requires that each wheel be marked with

the rim size designation. On January 11,

1994, Accuride produced an estimated

103 Accu-Forge 22.5 x 9.00 inch, 15

degree drop center, one-piece tubeless

dual wheels with incorrect size

designations for the rim width. The

wheels were incorrectly stamped ‘‘22.5

x 8.25.’’ The wheels should have been

stamped ‘‘22.5 x 9.00.’’ All other

stampings and markings required by

FMVSS No. 120 are correctly identified

on each of the subject wheels.

Accuride supported its application for

determination of inconsequential

noncompliance with the following

arguments:

Accuride has fully analyzed the issues

surrounding the incorrect width designation

on these wheels and has sought the input of

the others with particular expertise on this

subject. Based upon all of this analysis and

the information obtained, it appears clear

that there is no safety-related issue

potentially arising from the incorrect width

designations indicated on the wheels.

According to the 1994 Tire and Rim

Association Yearbook, the permissible tires

on a 22.5x9.00 inch rim are the 295/75*22.5

and the 12*22.5. The permissible tires for use

on a 22.5x8.25 inch rim are the 265/75*22.5,

295/75*22.5, 11*22.5, and the 12*22.5 size.

Because the 12*22.5 and the 295/75*22.5

tires are acceptable on both the 8.25 inch and

9.00 inch rims, these tire combinations are

not of concern. The remaining 11*22.5 and

265/75*22.5 tires that are specified only for

the 8.25 inch rim have been given particular

attention. Accuride has carefully evaluated

all of the issues surrounding the possible

effect of use of such tires on a wider 9.00