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
8768 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Notices

inch rim. We have also solicited the input of

two major tire manufacturers and specifically

inquired as to potential negative effects of

such usage. Our analysis, as well as that of

the tire manufacturers, is that there is no

safety-related issue. Load carrying capacities,

air retention, handling characteristics, and

other aspects of performance will not be

affected to any degree significant to motor

vehicle safety. The only potential effect of

such usage results from the fact that the tires

in question are slightly more spread on the

wider 9.00 inch rim resulting in some chance

of reduction in tread wear to a minor degree.

It should also be pointed out that the

22.5x9.00 inch size is generally a special

application tire and wheel combination

typically used in North America only on

fleets requiring a particular larger tire for the

needs of their operation. The wheel in

question is heavier and more expensive than

a standard 8.25 inch wheel, and these fleets

use the product because of specific higher

load requirements and would also use the

larger tire to meet those same requirements.

It is, therefore, Accuride’s conclusion that the

possibility that narrower tires would be used

on these wheels is extremely remote.

A comment on the petition was

received from Robert J. Crail of

Knoxville, TN, who concurred with

Accuride’s argument that the possibility

of a tire being misapplied on the

noncompliant rims is remote. He

recommended granting the petition.

Because Accuride had not specified

the names of the tire manufacturers that

it had consulted, NHTSA contacted the

applicant and learned that the

manufacturers were Michelin Tire

Corporation and Bridgestone/Firestone,

Inc. NHTSA spoke with representatives

of the two companies, each of whom

stated that the only possible effect of

misapplication would be a possible

minor increase in tire wear. At NHTSA’s

request, Accuride is sending an

explanatory letter to the entities to

whom Accuride sold the noncompliant

rims. NHTSA agrees with the argument

and comment that the possibility of

misapplication is remote due to

specialized use by truck fleets.

In consideration of the foregoing,

Accuride has met its burden of

persuasion that the noncompliance

described above is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety, and it is hereby

exempted from providing the

notification required by 49 U.S.C.

30118, and the remedy required by 49

U.S.C. 30120.

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

49 CFR 501.8)

Issued on: February 9, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 95–3693 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 94–103; Notice 2]

American Transportation Corporation;

Grant of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

American Transportation Corporation

(AmTran) of Conway, Arkansas

determined that some of its vehicles

failed 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.’’ AmTran

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 November 22, 1994,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (59 FR 60190).

Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120

requires that each vehicle to which it

applies must have a label affixed which

includes the size designation of the tires

and the size designation of the rims.

AmTran produced approximately

38,000 buses and school buses from

1987 through 1994 which do not meet

the labeling requirements stated in the

standard in that they lack the rim

diameter designation on the label.

However, the label does bear the

complete tire size, which includes the

tire diameter.

AmTran supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

The rim width is listed on the certification

label; however, the rim diameter is not listed.

The complete tire size, including the

diameter (which is identical to the rim

diameter), is listed on each label. Therefore,

[AmTran] believes that sufficient information

is available for the user to match tire and rim

sizes appropriately.

No comments were received in

response to the notice.

Lack of rim size designation could

result in installation of replacement

tires of an improper size, or installation

of a replacement rim that is not

congruent with the other (unmarked)

rims. Presumably, a tire too small for the

rim would not fit and a tire too large for

the rim would be noticeable. Further, in

determining an appropriate replacement

rim, the individual servicing the vehicle

would most likely look at the size of the

tire on the rim being replaced. NHTSA

deems it unlikely that such an

individual would simply guess at the

correct rim diameter without

confirmation from a reliable source. The

vehicles whose labels lack the rim size

designation are buses and school buses,

are typically serviced by experienced

individuals, and, as a practical matter,

the noncompliance is unlikely to have

adverse safety consequences.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

applicant has met its burden of

persuasion, and the Administrator has

decided that the noncompliance herein

described is inconsequential to safety.

Accordingly, American Transportation

Corporation is hereby exempted from

providing notification according to 49

U.S.C. 30118, and remedy according to

49 U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 501.8)

Issued on: February 9, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 95–3694 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Surety Company Application and

Renewal Fees; Increase in Fees

Imposed

The Department of the Treasury,

Financial Management Service, will be

increasing the fees imposed and

collected as referred to in 31 CFR

223.22. This increase is to cover the

costs incurred by the Government for

services performed relative to qualifying

corporate sureties to write Federal

business.

The new fees are effective December

31, 1994, and are determined in

accordance with the Office of

Management and Budget Circular A–25,

as amended. The increase in fees is the

result of a thorough analysis of costs

associated with the Surety Bond Branch.

The new rate schedule is as follows:

(1) Examination of a company’s

application for a Certificate of Authority

as an acceptable surety or as an

acceptable reinsuring company on

Federal bonds—$3,725.

(2) Determination of a company’s

continued qualification for annual

renewal of its Certificate of Authority—

$2,200.

(3) Examination of a company’s

application for recognition as an

Admitted Reinsurer (except on excess

risks running to the United States)—

$1,325.

(4) Determination of a company’s

continued qualification for annual

renewal of its authority as an Admitted

Reinsurer—$930.