3658 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices

1Pursuant to 29 CFR 2510.3–2(d), the IRA is not

within the jurisdiction of Title I of the Act.

However, there is jurisdiction under Title II of the

Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Parr of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8971. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. 401(k)

Savings Plan (the Plan) Located in

Chicago, Illinois

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–02;

Application No. D–09803]

Exemption

The restrictions of sections 406(a),

406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the

sanctions resulting from the application

of section 4975 of the Code, by reason

of section 4975(c)(1) (A) through (E) of

the Code shall not apply to (1) the past

interest-free loan to the Plan (the Loan)

by Wilson Sporting Goods Co. (the

Employer), a party in interest with

respect to the Plan, and (2) the Plan’s

potential repayment of the Loan upon

the receipt by the Plan of payments

under Guaranteed Investment Contract

No. CG01314A3A (the GIC) issued by

Executive Life Insurance Company

(Executive Life); provided the following

conditions are satisfied:

(A) No interest or expenses are paid

by the Plan in connection with the

transaction;

(B) The Loan will be repaid only out

of amounts paid to the Plan by

Executive Life, its successors, or any

other responsible third party; and

(C) Repayment of the Loan is waived

with respect to the amount by which the

Loan exceeds GIC proceeds.

For a more complete statement of the

facts and representations supporting the

Department’s decision to grant this

exemption, refer to the notice of

proposed exemption published on

November 14, 1994 at 59 FR 56550.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This exemption is

effective as of April 1, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Virginia J. Miller of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8971. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

Erick M. Jansson, IRA (the IRA)

Located in Fayetteville, Arkansas

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–03;

Exemption Application No. D–09847]

Exemption

The sanctions resulting from the

application of section 4975 of the Code,

by reason of section 4975(c)(1) (A)

through (E) of the Code, shall not apply

to the proposed sale of an overriding

royalty interest in oil and gas (the

Interest) by the IRA to Mr. Erick M.

Jansson (Mr. Jansson), a disqualified

person with respect to the IRA, for

$95,000 in cash, provided:

(a) The IRA pays no commissions or

other expenses in connection with the

sale;

(b) The fair market value of the

Interest is determined by a qualified

independent appraiser; and

(c) The IRA receives no less than the

fair market value of the Interest on the

date of the sale.1

For a more complete statement of the

facts and representations supporting the

Department’s decision to grant this

exemption refer to the notice of

proposed exemption published on

December 5, 1994 at 59 FR 62419.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

H. Lefkowitz of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8881. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

General Information

The attention of interested persons is

directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the

subject of an exemption under section

408(a) of the Act and/or section

4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve

a fiduciary or other party in interest or

disqualified person from certain other

provisions to which the exemptions

does not apply and the general fiduciary

responsibility provisions of section 404

of the Act, which among other things

require a fiduciary to discharge his

duties respecting the plan solely in the

interest of the participants and

beneficiaries of the plan and in a

prudent fashion in accordance with

section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does

it affect the requirement of section

401(a) of the Code that the plan must

operate for the exclusive benefit of the

employees of the employer maintaining

the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) These exemptions are

supplemental to and not in derogation

of, any other provisions of the Act and/

or the Code, including statutory or

administrative exemptions and

transactional rules. Furthermore, the

fact that a transaction is subject to an

administrative or statutory exemption is

not dispositive of whether the

transaction is in fact a prohibited

transaction; and

(3) The availability of these

exemptions is subject to the express

condition that the material facts and

representations contained in each

application accurately describes all

material terms of the transaction which

is the subject of the exemption.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of

January, 1995.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–1199 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

[Application No. D–09787, et al.]

Proposed Exemptions; Boston Cement

Masons Local No. 534 Deferred Income

Plan, et al.

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemptions.

SUMMARY: This document contains

notices of pendency before the

Department of Labor (the Department) of

proposed exemptions from certain of the

prohibited transaction restriction of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).

Written Comments and Hearing

Requests

All interested persons are invited to

submit written comments or request for

a hearing on the pending exemptions,

unless otherwise stated in the Notice of

Proposed Exemption, within 45 days

from the date of publication of this

Federal Register Notice. Comments and

request for a hearing should state: (1)

The name, address, and telephone

number of the person making the

comment or request, and (2) the nature

of the person’s interest in the exemption

and the manner in which the person

would be adversely affected by the

exemption. A request for a hearing must

also state the issues to be addressed and

include a general description of the

evidence to be presented at the hearing.

A request for a hearing must also state

the issues to be addressed and include

a general description of the evidence to

be presented at the hearing.

ADDRESSES: All written comments and

request for a hearing (at least three

copies) should be sent to the Pension

and Welfare Benefits Administration,

Office of Exemption Determinations,

Room N–5649, U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210. Attention:

Application No. stated in each Notice of

Proposed Exemption. The applications

for exemption and the comments

received will be available for public

inspection in the Public Documents

Room of Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room N–5507, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices 3659

Notice to Interested Persons

Notice of the proposed exemptions

will be provided to all interested

persons in the manner agreed upon by

the applicant and the Department

within 15 days of the date of publication

in the Federal Register. Such notice

shall include a copy of the notice of

proposed exemption as published in the

Federal Register and shall inform

interested persons of their right to

comment and to request a hearing

(where appropriate).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed exemptions were requested in

applications filed pursuant to section

408(a) of the Act and/or section

4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in

accordance with procedures set forth in

29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR

32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).

Effective December 31, 1978, section

102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of

1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17, 1978)

transferred the authority of the Secretary

of the Treasury to issue exemptions of

the type requested to the Secretary of

Labor. Therefore, these notices of

proposed exemption are issued solely

by the Department.

The applications contain

representations with regard to the

proposed exemptions which are

summarized below. Interested persons

are referred to the applications on file

with the Department for a complete

statement of the facts and

representations.

Boston Cement Masons Union Local No.

534 Deferred Income Plan (the Deferred

Income Plan), Boston Cement Masons

Union Local No. 534 Pension Plan (the

Pension Plan), Boston Cement Masons

Union Local No. 534 Health and

Welfare Plan (the Welfare Plan) and

Boston Cement Masons Union Local No.

534 Apprenticeship Plan (the

Apprenticeship Plan; Collectively, the

Plans) Located in Boston,

Massachusetts

[Application Nos. D–9787, D–9788, L–9789

and L–9790, respectively]

Proposed Exemption

The Department is considering

granting an exemption under the

authority of section 408(a) of the Act

and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code in

accordance and with the procedures set

forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55

FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If

the exemption is granted, the

restrictions of sections 406(a), 406 (b)(1)

and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions

resulting from the application of section

4975 of the Code, by reason of section

4975(c)(1) (A) through (E) of the Code,

shall not apply to the proposed leasing

of office space in a building (the

Building) owned by the Deferred

Income Plan to the Boston Cement

Masons Union Local No. 534 (the

Union), a party in interest with respect

to the Deferred Income Plan.

In addition, the restrictions of section

406(b)(2) of the Act shall not apply to

the proposed leasing of office space in

the Building by the Deferred Income

Plan to the Pension Plan, the Welfare

Plan and the Apprenticeship Plan.

This proposed exemption is

conditioned upon the following

requirements: (1) The terms of all such

leasing arrangements are at least as

favorable to the Plans as those

obtainable in an arm’s length

transaction with an unrelated party; (2)

an independent, qualified fiduciary,

who has approved of the leasing

arrangements, agrees to monitor all

leases on behalf of the Deferred Income

Plan as well as the terms and conditions

of the exemption at all times; (3) the

rental charged by the Deferred Income

Plan under each lease is based upon the

fair market rental value of the premises

as determined by an independent,

qualified appraiser; (4) the Building is

revalued annually by the independent,

qualified appraiser; (5) if appropriate,

the independent, qualified fiduciary

adjusts the rentals charged for the office

space based upon the annual appraisals

of the Building; and (6) the trustees

determine that the leasing arrangements

are in the best interests of the Pension

Plan, the Welfare Plan and the

Apprenticeship Plan.

Summary of Facts and Representations

1. The Plans are multiemployer plans

that have been established and

maintained in accordance with section

302(c)(5) of the Labor Management

Relations Act of 1947, as amended, and

in accordance with the terms of a

collective bargaining agreement by and

between the Union and various

contributing employers (the Employers).

The Plans are jointly trusteed by four

trustees, (the Trustees), two of whom

have been selected by the Employers

and two of whom have been designated

by the Union. Eight individuals

comprise the Trustees for the Plans.

With respect to composition of the

Trustees for the Deferred Income Plan,

Thomas Gunning, who was selected by

the Employers, serves as Trustee for

each of the Plans; Harry Brousaides,

who was selected by the Union, and an

individual yet to be named by the

Employers, will serve as Trustees for

three out of the four Plans; and Jeremiah

McGillicuddy, who was selected by the

Union, serves as Trustee for two out of

the four Plans. Add-Men Services,

which is located in Boston,

Massachusetts, administers the Plans.

Investment decisions for the Deferred

Income Plan, the Pension Plan and the

Welfare Plan are made by Delta

Financial Management Corporation of

Hingham, Massachusetts and Anchor

Capital Advisors of Boston,

Massachusetts, entities which serve as

investment managers to these Plans. The

Trustees of the Apprenticeship Plan

have the sole investment discretion with

regard to the Apprenticeship Plan’s

assets.

2. The Plans cover cement masons

and other employees in the geographical

area of Boston and numerous cities and

towns in northeastern Massachusetts.

The participant breakdown and asset

balances for the Plans as of March 31,

1994 are as follows:

Plan

No. of

participantsTotal assets

Deferred Income

Plan ................... 271 $3,940,457

Pension Plan ......... 455 4,583,480

Welfare Plan ......... 395 1,540,055

Apprenticeship

Plan ................... ........... 178,966

Although the Plans have many common

participants as well as common trustees,

they are not parties in interest with

respect to each other within the

meaning of section 3(14) of the Act.

3. In 1994, the Deferred Income Plan

purchased two parcels of improved real

property from John Rogan, Paul Rogan

and Jane Rogan, unrelated parties,

primarily for investment purposes but

also for office space for its own use. The

first parcel (Property #1), located at 288

Minot Street in Dorchester,

Massachusetts, consists of the Building

and a two-family, wood frame,

residential building and the underlying

land of each building. The Building is

the only part of Property #1 which will

be subject to the leasing arrangements

described herein. The Building is a

7,587 square foot, commercial garage

and warehouse with finished office

space and two separate garages. The

second parcel (Property #2), located at

296 Minot Street, consists of a singlefamily, wood frame, residential building

and the underlying land. Property #2

lies contiguous to Property #1. Property

#2 will not be subject to any of the

leasing arrangements described herein.

For purposes of purchasing these two

parcels, the Deferred Income Plan

obtained an appraisal from Eileen

Partridge, an appraiser affiliated with

Real Estate Appraisal and Consulting

Servicing, which is located in Quincy,
3660 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices

1The Department expresses no opinion in this

proposed exemption on whether the acquisition of

the Building by the Deferred Income Plan violates

any of the provisions of part 4 of Title I of the Act.

Massachusetts. Ms. Partridge represents

that she is independent of, and

unrelated to, the Union, the Plans and

the Rogans. Ms. Partridge has fifteen

years of experience in appraising,

selling and marketing commercial and

industrial real estate. Ms. Partridge

placed the fair market value of Property

#1 and Property #2 at $325,000 and

$110,000, respectively, for a total fair

market value of $435,000 as of April 13,

1994. After negotiation between the

parties, a purchase and sale agreement

was entered into for both parcels at an

agreed upon purchase price of

$394,600.1 After such purchase, the part

of Property #1 which constitutes the

residential building and all of Property

#2 remains leased to the existing tenants

who are unrelated parties to the

Deferred Income Plan.

4. The applicant represents that the

Deferred Income Plan will utilize less

than fifty percent of the Building for its

own activities and intends to lease the

remaining space in the Building to the

Pension Plan, the Welfare Plan, the

Apprenticeship Plan, the Union and

other unrelated entities. With respect to

the shared office space, the Deferred

Income Plan, as lessor, proposes to enter

into a written lease with the Pension

Plan, the Welfare Plan and the

Apprenticeship Plan for a five-year term

and with the Union for a ten-year term.

The lease will not contain an automatic

renewal provision, and the rental will

be exclusive of utilities. The lease will

allow the Deferred Income Plan, as

lessor, and the lessee Plans the right to

terminate the lease upon ninety days

advance notice. The lease will also be

subject to annual fair market value

adjustments to the rent as described

herein in Representation 7. The Trustees

request an administrative exemption

from the Department to permit the

leasing of the Building to the Union, the

Pension Plan, the Welfare Plan and the

Apprenticeship Plan under the terms

and conditions described herein.

5. The Deferred Income Plan proposes

to lease four separate areas of space

within the Building (Space #1 - #4,

inclusively) to the Pension Plan, the

Welfare Plan, the Apprenticeship Plan

and the Union. Descriptions of the four

spaces are set out below:

a. Space #1 consists of 1,426 square

feet of finished office space which will

be used by the Plans and the Union. The

Plans and the Union intend to share

such space in different proportions and

will divide the rental costs for such

space based upon these proportions.

The Pension Plan, the Welfare Plan and

the Deferred Income Plan will be using

the same space because they share a

common administrator/executive

director who utilizes the same office

and desk space. The allocation of the

rent for these three Plans is based upon

the parties’ usage of this space. The

percentage of the rent for Space #1 will

be divided as follows:

Lessee

Percentage

Pension Plan .................................... 12

Welfare Plan ..................................... 12

Apprenticeship Plan .......................... 25

Union ................................................ 45

Deferred Income Plan ...................... 6

Total ....................................... 100

b. Space #2 consists of 1,910 square

feet of unfinished garage-type space

which will be leased jointly to the

Union and the Apprenticeship Plan.

The Union will use such space for

meetings, training, seminars and

negotiations on a regular basis during

the week, and the Apprenticeship Plan

will use the space on the weekends and

occasionally during the week. The

rental will be shared, on the basis of

usage, on a seventy-five to twenty-five

percent basis by the Union and the

Apprenticeship Plan, respectively.

c. Space #3 consists of 560 square feet

of unfinished garage space that will be

leased exclusively by the

Apprenticeship Plan for storage of

construction equipment and supplies

necessary to and used in the training

program.

d. Space #4 consists of 285 square feet

of unfinished garage space that will be

leased exclusively to the Union for file

cabinets and other office related storage.

6. The applicants represent that the

rent to be paid by each lessee will be

based upon an independent appraisal.

In this regard, on April 25, 1994, Ms.

Partridge placed the annual fair market

rental values of the various spaces as

follows:

Space Fair market rental value

Space #1 ...... $6.00 per square foot.

Space #2 ...... 4.00 per square foot.

Space #3 ...... 4.00 per square foot.

Space #4 ...... 4.00 per square foot.

7. The applicants represent that Ms.

Partridge, who will also serve on behalf

of the Deferred Income Plan as the

independent, qualified fiduciary with

respect to the lease transactions, will

have the Building reappraised annually

by an independent, qualified appraiser.

The purposes of the annual appraisals

are to ensure that: (1) The space

occupied by the Plans and the Union

reflects the fair market rental value; and

(2) the allocation of rent for the shared

office space is appropriate for the Plans

and is fair based on the Plans’ usage.

Based upon these annual appraisals and

an annual review of the Plans’ usage of

the shared office space, Ms. Partridge

will adjust the rental amounts for such

space, if necessary, based upon any

changes in the fair market rental values

or the reallocation of space used by any

of the Plans or the Union. If, as the

result of an annual appraisal, the fair

market rental value of the office space

declines in value from the prior rental

year, the Union will be required to pay

the Deferred Income Plan the same

rental that it paid the Deferred Income

Plan during the previous year. The

lessee Plans, however, will not be

affected by this ‘‘floor’’ requirement.

8. In her capacity as the independent,

qualified fiduciary, Ms. Partridge states

that she understands and acknowledges

her duties, responsibilities, and

liabilities in acting as a fiduciary with

respect to the Deferred Income Plan

based upon consultation with counsel

experienced with the fiduciary

responsibility provisions of the Act. Ms.

Partridge derives less than one percent

of her annual income from the Union

and the Plans.

Ms. Partridge represents that she has

reviewed the terms of the leasing

arrangements between the Deferred

Income Plan and the Pension Plan, the

Welfare Plan, the Apprenticeship Plan

and the Union and has concluded that

these leasing arrangements are fair to

the Deferred Income Plan. In addition,

Ms. Partridge states that the terms and

conditions of these leases are acceptable

and compare favorable to other leases in

the Boston area. To support her opinion,

Ms. Partridge represents that she has

considered the current economic

climate, comparable rents in the area,

vacancy rates and property amenities.

Ms. Partridge also believes that the

leasing arrangements are in the best

interests of the Deferred Income Plan

and its participants and beneficiaries.

She states that the Deferred Income Plan

will continue receiving market rate rents

on a regular and a timely basis and that

it would not be able to obtain more

income from other independent tenants.

Ms. Partridge also represents that she

has examined the current financial

statements and portfolio of the Deferred

Income Plan. Based upon such review,

she states that the lease transactions are

consistent with the Deferred Income

Plan’s diversification, liquidity and

investment strategy.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices 3661

2Since Peter Aswad and his wife, Judith Aswad,

are the only participants in the Plan, there is no

jurisdiction under Title I of the Act pursuant to 29

CFR 2510.3–3(b). However, there is jurisdiction

under Title II of the Act pursuant to section 4975

of the Code.

With regard to the creditworthiness of

the lessees and their ability to pay, Ms.

Partridge represents that she has

reviewed the most recent financial

statements for the Pension Plan, the

Welfare Plan, the Apprenticeship Plan

and the Union along with the lessees’

hourly contribution rates set forth in the

collective bargaining agreement. Based

upon their steady stream of annual

income, she believes that the lessees are

creditworthy for the purposes of the

lease transactions contemplated herein.

Besides the duties described above,

Ms. Partridge will: (a) Oversee the

collection of rent; (b) determine whether

it is appropriate to renew or continue a

leasing arrangement; and (c) take all

actions that are necessary and property

to enforce the rights of the Deferred

Income Plan and protect the

participants and beneficiaries of such

Plan.

9. In addition to Ms. Partridge’s

review of the transactions, the Trustees

represent that before the leases are

consummated, they will review the

investment needs of each of the related

Plans, the terms and conditions of the

leasing arrangements, including the

initial rental rate and the subsequent

appraisals by the independent, qualified

appraiser. Based upon their

consideration of such matters, the

Trustees will determine whether the

leasing arrangements are in the best

interests of the Pension Plan, the

Welfare Plan and the Apprenticeship

Plan. The Trustees will also determine

whether the amount of space leased by

the Pension Plan, the Welfare Plan and

the Apprenticeship Plan is appropriate

and necessary for the needs of these

Plans.

10. In summary, it is represented that

the proposed transactions will satisfy

the statutory criteria for an exemption

under section 408(a) of the Act because:

(a) the terms of all such leasing

arrangements will be at least as

favorable to the Plans as those

obtainable in an arm’s length

transaction with an unrelated party; (b)

Ms. Partridge, as the Deferred Income

Plan’s independent, qualified fiduciary,

will approve of the leasing

arrangements, will agree to monitor all

leases on behalf of the Deferred Income

Plan as well as the terms and conditions

of the exemption at all times; (c) the

rental charged by the Deferred Income

Plan under each lease will be based

upon the fair market rental value of the

premises as determined by an

independent, qualified appraiser; (d) the

Building will be revalued annually by

the independent, qualified appraiser;

and (e) if appropriate, Ms. Partridge will

adjust the rentals charged for the office

space based upon the annual appraisals

of the Building; and (f) the Trustees will

determine that the leasing arrangements

are and continue to be in the best

interests of the Pension Plan, the

Welfare Plan and the Apprenticeship

Plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Parr of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8971. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

Wadco, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and

Trust (the Plan) Located in Spring,

Texas

[Application No. D–9820]

Proposed Exemption

The Department is considering

granting an exemption under the

authority of section 4975(c)(2) of the

Code and in accordance with the

procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part

2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847,

August 10, 1990). If the exemption is

granted, the sanctions resulting from the

application of section 4975 of the Code,

by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A)

through (E) of the Code, shall not apply

to the proposed sale (the Sale) of certain

shares of stock (the Stock) by the Plan

to Peter Aswad, a disqualified person

with respect to the Plan.2

This proposed exemption is

conditioned upon the following

requirements: (1) All terms and

conditions of the Sale are at least as

favorable to the Plan as those obtainable

in an arm’s length transaction between

unrelated parties; (2) the Sale is a onetime cash transaction; (3) the Plan is not

required to pay any commissions, costs

or other expenses in connection with

the Sale; (4) the Plan receives a sales

price equal to the fair market value of

the Stock as determined by an

independent, qualified appraiser; (5) the

trustees of the Plan determine that the

Sale is appropriate for the Plan and is

in the best interests of the Plan and their

participants and beneficiaries; and (6)

within ninety days of the grant of this

proposed exemption, Wadco files Forms

5330 with the Internal Revenue Service

and pays all applicable excise taxes due

with respect to past prohibited

transactions.

Summary of Facts and Representations

1. The Plan, established on December

4, 1990, is a profit sharing plan

sponsored by Wadco, Inc. (Wadco).

Wadco is an Illinois corporation

previously engaged in the purchase and

resale of molecular sieves used in the

manufacturing of thermal-pane glass.

Presently, Wadco is not actively

involved in any type of business. As of

December 31, 1993, the Plan had total

assets of $275,727 and two participants,

Peter and Judith Aswad, who are also

the trustees of the Plan (the Trustees).

The Trustees have the sole investment

discretion with regard to the Plan.

2. Among the assets of the Plan is the

Stock. The Stock consists of 300 shares

of stock in Titan Industries, Inc. (Titan),

a closely-held Oklahoma corporation

which engages in the manufacture of

additive injection equipment. The Stock

represents approximately fifty percent

of the issued and outstanding stock of

Titan. The remaining fifty percent of the

issued and outstanding stock of Titan is

owned by Gary Williams, the President

of Titan. Mr. Aswad is the Chairman of

the Board of Directors of Titan and is

the acting sales manager for the western

half of the United States and the Far

East.

In 1987, Wadco acquired the Stock for

approximately $15,000 and contributed

it to the Wadco, Inc. Defined Benefit

Plan (the DB Plan), a qualified plan

maintained by Wadco in the 1980’s. The

trustees of the DB Plan terminated the

DB Plan, effective December 31, 1989,

and distributed all of its assets on

December 10, 1990, to the DB Plan’s

only participants, Mr. and Mrs. Aswad,

in 1990. At this time, Mr. and Mrs.

Aswad rolled over the Stock, worth

approximately $118,904, into the Plan.

Wadco is aware of the fact that the

contribution of the Stock constituted a

prohibited transaction in violation of

the Code. Accordingly, Wadco

represents that within ninety days of the

grant of this proposed exemption, it will

file Forms 5330 with the Internal

Revenue Service and will pay all

applicable excise taxes due with respect

to past prohibited transactions.

As of November 14, 1994, neither the

Plan nor the DB Plan had received any

dividends from the Stock. However, the

Stock has appreciated approximately

50.5 percent per year since its

acquisition in 1987. As of December 31,

1993, the Stock amounted to

approximately eighty-six percent of the

total assets of the Plan.

3. Because the Stock accounts for

such a large percentage of the Plan’s

assets and cannot readily be liquidated

due to the lack of a public market, the

Trustees desire to sell the Stock out of

the Plan. The Trustees anticipate that

any efforts to sell the Stock to unrelated

parties would result in a sale at a less

than its fair market value (see

Representation #4) due to the Stock’s
3662 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices

lack of marketability. Because Mr.

Aswad is willing to purchase the Stock

from the Plan, the Trustees propose to

sell the Stock to Mr. Aswad for the fair

market value of the Stock on the date of

the Sale as determined by an

independent, qualified appraiser. The

Sale will be one-time cash transaction,

and the Plan will not be required to pay

any fees, commissions or expenses in

connection with the sale of the Stock.

The Trustees have determined that the

Sale is appropriate for the Plan and is

in the best interests of the Plan and their

participants and beneficiaries.

Accordingly, the Trustees request an

administrative exemption from the

Department to permit the sale of the

Stock to Mr. Aswad.

4. Richard P. Bernstein, the President

of Richard P. Bernstein, Inc., a business

evaluation and appraisal firm which is

located in Dallas, Texas, appraised the

Stock. Mr. Bernstein represents that he

has performed approximately 2,000

valuations of closely-held companies

since 1975. Mr. Bernstein represents

that both he and his firm are

independent of, and unrelated to,

Wadco, Titan and the Trustees.

Mr. Bernstein placed the fair market

value of the Stock at $218,000 or $726

per share as of May 24, 1994. Mr.

Bernstein’s valuation includes a thirtyfive percent discount based upon the

Stock’s limited marketability.

5. In summary, it is represented that

the transaction will satisfy the statutory

criteria of section 408(a) of the Act

because: (a) All terms and conditions of

the Sale will be at least as favorable to

the Plan as those obtainable in an arm’s

length transaction between unrelated

parties; (b) the Sale will be a one-time

cash transaction; (c) the Plan will not be

required to pay any commissions, costs

or other expenses in connection with

the Sale; (d) the Plan will receive a sales

price equal to the fair market value of

the Stock as determined by an

independent, qualified appraiser; (e) the

Trustees of the Plan will determine that

the Sale is appropriate for the Plan and

is in the best interests of the Plan and

their participants and beneficiaries; and

(f) within ninety days of the grant of this

proposed exemption, Wadco will file a

Forms 5330 with the Internal Revenue

Service and pay all applicable excise

taxes due with respect to past

prohibited transactions

Notice to Interested Persons

Since Mr. and Mrs. Aswad are the

only participants in the Plan, it has been

determined that there is no need to

distribute the notice of proposed

exemption to interested persons.

Comments are due within thirty days

after publication of this notice in the

Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Parr of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8971. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

The Travelers Separate Account ‘‘R’’

(SAR) Located in Hartford, Connecticut

[Application No. D–9827]

Proposed Exemption

The Department is considering

granting an exemption under the

authority of section 408(a) of the Act

and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and

in accordance with the procedures set

forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55

FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If

the exemption is granted, the

restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1)

and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the

sanctions resulting from the application

of section 4975 of the Code, by reason

of section 4975(c)(1) (A) through (E) of

the Code, shall not apply to the past

lease (the Lease) of space in an office

building located in Cedar Knolls, New

Jersey (the Building) from December 22,

1993 until June 24, 1994 by SAR to The

Travelers Insurance Company

(Travelers), a party in interest with

respect to employee benefit plans

invested in SAR, provided that the

following conditions were satisfied:

(a) All terms and conditions of the

Lease were at least as favorable to SAR

as those which SAR could have

obtained in an arm’s-length transaction

with an unrelated party at the time the

Lease was executed;

(b) The rent paid by Travelers to SAR

under the Lease was not less than the

fair market rental value of the office

space;

(c) LaSalle Partners (LaSalle), acting

as a qualified, independent fiduciary for

SAR during the time that the Building

was owned by SAR, reviewed all terms

and conditions of the Lease prior to the

transaction, as well as any subsequent

modifications to the Lease, and

determined that such terms and

conditions would be in the best interests

of SAR at the time of the transaction;

(d) LaSalle represented the interests of

SAR for all purposes under the Lease as

a qualified, independent fiduciary for

SAR, monitored the performance of the

parties under the terms and conditions

of the Lease, and took whatever action

was necessary to safeguard the interests

of SAR with respect to the Lease during

the time that the Building was part of

SAR’s portfolio; and

(e) Travelers pays to all of SAR’s

contractholders, upon final liquidation

of the properties held by SAR, amounts

necessary to reimburse SAR for

expenses incurred in connection with

the tenant improvements made to the

office space leased to Travelers prior to

the sale of the Building (i.e. $1,363,581),

as well as all other amounts required to

be paid to SAR’s contractholders,

pursuant to the terms of the Settlement

Agreement arising from The Travelers

Insurance Company v. Allied-Signal Inc.

Master Pension Trust, et al. (Civil No.

H–90–870–AHN, USDC D Conn).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This proposed

exemption, if granted, will be effective

for the period from December 22, 1993

until June 24, 1994.

Summary of Facts and Representations

1. Travelers, a wholly-owned

subsidiary of The Travelers Corporation

(Travelers Corp.), is a Connecticut

corporation and one of the largest stock

insurance companies in the United

States. At the end of 1992, Travelers

Corp. held more than $53 billion in total

assets.

2. Travelers serves as the asset

manager for SAR, which is maintained

by Travelers for the investment of

qualified pension plan assets in real

estate related investments. SAR is a

pooled separate account which consists

of two components, an equity

component and a mortgage component.

The equity component accounts for 95%

of the assets held in SAR. Total assets

held in SAR were valued at $63,902,857

as of September 30, 1993.

Participation in SAR is limited to

qualified private retirement plans and

governmental plans. As of December 31,

1992, approximately 150 plans

participated in SAR. The interest of no

single plan represents more than 20% of

SAR’s total assets, except for The

Pension Plan for Salaried Employees of

The Travelers Corporation and Certain

Subsidiaries (The Travelers Plan) which

represented approximately 44% of

SAR’s total assets as of September 30,

1993. In this regard, the Travelers Plan

had 38,383 participants and total net

assets of approximately $1,624,547,217

as of December 31, 1992. The Finance

Committee of the Board of Directors of

Travelers Corp. is the fiduciary

responsible for the original investment

of the Travelers Plan in SAR.

3. In December 1989, Travelers

decided to terminate SAR and proceed

with an accelerated liquidation of SAR’s

properties for distribution of the

proceeds on a pro rata basis. In June

1990, a SAR contractholder initiated

litigation related to the proposed

distribution of proceeds. The plaintiffs

initially sued Travelers Corp. and

Travelers in the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of Texas, The

Police and Fire Pension Fund of the City
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices 3663

3The Lease contains three units with different

rentable areas and commencement dates. Unit A

includes 9464 RSF on the first and second floors

which was occupied by Travelers as of January 1,

1994. Unit B includes 34,400 RSF on the first,

second and fourth floors which was occupied by

Travelers as of July 1, 1994. Unit C includes 8536

RSF on the second floor which was occupied by

Travelers as of May 1, 1994. The Lease allowed

Travelers to adjust the area of Unit B, subject to the

Travelers’ design plan for various improvements.

4From the commencement date applicable to

Unit A through June 30, 1994, the base rent was

$147,705 per annum (i.e. approximately $12,308

per month). Commencing July 1, 1994 and

continuing until the expiration date of the Lease,

the base rent for Unit A will be $166,020 per annum

(i.e. approximately $13,835 per month). From the

commencement date applicable to Unit C through

June 30, 1994, the base rent was $128,040 per

annum (i.e. approximately $10,670 per month).

Commencing July 1, 1994 and continuing until the

expiration date of the Lease, the base rent for Unit

C will be $143,916 per annum (i.e. approximately

$11,993 per month). The annual base rent for Unit

B will be based upon the final RSF of Unit B, as

determined in accordance with the terms of the

Lease multiplied by $16.86 per square foot based on

tenant specified improvements.

of Dallas, Texas v. The Travelers Corp.

and The Travelers Insurance Co., (Civil

No. CA–3–90–1558–C, USDC ND Tex.)

(referred to below as ‘‘the Texas

Litigation’’). Subsequently, Travelers

Corp., Travelers, and two affiliates filed

a defendant class action seeking to

resolve issues connected to SAR’s

liquidation in The Travelers Insurance

Company v. Allied-Signal Inc. Master

Pension Trust, et al. (Civil No. H–90–

870–AHN, USDC D Conn) (referred to

below as the ‘‘Allied-Signal Litigation’’).

The Texas Litigation was dismissed and

the plaintiffs reasserted their claims as

counterclaims in the Allied-Signal

Litigation. In 1993, the court granted

final approval of settlements in the

Allied-Signal Litigation which set forth

procedures to distribute amounts held

in the equity and mortgage components

of SAR. The settlement agreements

require Travelers to use its best efforts

to liquidate all of SAR’s equity

investments, including the Building, by

April 1995.

4. The Building is a four story,

116,919 square foot office building

located at 240 Cedar Knolls, Cedar

Knolls, New Jersey. Travelers entered

into an agreement with SAR on

December 22, 1993, to lease office space

in the Building pursuant to the terms of

the Lease. The Lease allowed Travelers

to occupy approximately 52,400

rentable square feet (RSF) in the

Building.3 Prior to the Lease, the

Building had approximately 55% of its

office space occupied, all by parties

unrelated to Travelers and its affiliates.

As a result of the Lease, the Building

was over 98% occupied once Travelers

moved into all of the office space it

planned to use. Thus, the applicant

states that the Lease made the Building

more marketable for sale to a third party

and was in the best interests of the plans

that were contractholders in SAR at the

time of the transaction.

5. Under the terms of the Lease,

Travelers agreed to lease the office space

for five years, six months. Travelers

pays $15.00 per square foot per annum,

adjusted up to $16.86 per square foot

per annum to account for additional

tenant improvements, under the base

rent schedule specified in the Lease.4

All rents under the Lease are payable

monthly upon the first business day of

the month. The Lease also provides 205

parking spaces for use by Travelers at no

additional cost.

The Lease allocates a number of nonrent expenses to Travelers. Tenantelectric is submetered and paid for by

Travelers. In addition, Travelers agreed

to pay a proportionate share of increases

in actual operating expenses incurred by

the landlord under the Lease. However,

the annual increase in operating

expenses for which Travelers is liable as

tenant, other than energy, taxes and

insurance, may not exceed the annual

percentage increase in the consumer

price index (CPI). Travelers also agreed

to pay its proportionate share of

increases in real estate taxes.

With respect to tenant improvements,

the Lease provided Travelers with new

building installations in accordance

with Travelers’ plans and specifications

at a one-time cost not to exceed $27.00

per square foot, which will be paid for

by Travelers through the base rents

described above. SAR spent $1,363,581

under the tenant improvement

allowance for the office space leased to

Travelers.

6. On June 24, 1994, SAR sold the

Building to Koll Investment

Management, Inc. (Koll), for $4,000,000.

The applicant states that Koll is a

California corporation, d/b/a KB Realty

Advisors, which is unrelated to

Travelers and its affiliates. The proceeds

from the sale were distributed in July

1994 to the contractholders of SAR in

accordance with the settlement

agreement arising from the Allied-Signal

Litigation (the Settlement Agreement).

In this regard, the applicant states that

the Settlement Agreement requires

Travelers to distribute to all of SAR’s

equity contractholders, over the course

of liquidating the remaining assets,

returns that are at least equal to the

value of the equity components of SAR

as of December 31, 1992 (the Target

Amount). Under the Settlement

Agreement, Travelers must make

‘‘differential compensation’’ payments

over and above distributions from SAR

if the amounts distributed to the

contractholders fail to meet the Target

Amount. Specifically, the ‘‘differential

compensation’’ payments will constitute

the difference between the Target

Amount (i.e. $75,160,003) and the total

amount of cash distributions to

contractholders from that date forward.

The applicant states that a ‘‘differential

compensation’’ payment of

approximately $7,375,997 would be due

to SAR’s contractholders to meet the

Target Amount, based on the

distributions made to the

contractholders (i.e. $48,226,355) and

the value of the assets remaining in SAR

as of September 30, 1994 (i.e.

$19,557,651). As a result, the existing

assets would have to be sold for in

excess of $26,933,648, to extinguish

Travelers’ obligation to make a

differential compensation payment.

SAR is in the final phases of its

liquidation process and expects to

complete liquidation of its equity

portfolio within the next few months.

Travelers represents that the

deficiency of $7,375,997 as of

September 30, 1994, was comprised of

shortfall amounts from the sale of assets

at less than their appraised value as of

December 31, 1992, and unrecovered

expenditures of SAR assets. With

respect to the Building, the applicant

indicates that this asset had a fair

market value of $4,150,000 as of

December 31, 1992. Had the Building

been sold for more than that amount,

the differential compensation amount

would have been reduced. However, the

sale of the Building to Koll for

$4,000,000 increased the amount of

differential compensation owed by

Travelers by $150,000. Similarly, the

tenant improvements made to the

Building prior to the sale totalling

$1,363,581 were paid from SAR funds.

As such, the total amount of tenant

improvement expenditures was

unavailable for distribution to SAR

investors. Each dollar spent on the

improvements therefore has increased

the magnitude of the differential

compensation payment owed by

Travelers under the Settlement

Agreement. Since the sale of the

remaining assets will not be sufficient to

reduce already incurred deficiencies,

Travelers will be responsible for these

amounts out of its general assets. Thus,

the size of the differential compensation

payment will reflect all amounts spent

by SAR for tenant improvements to the

space in the Building leased to Travelers

(i.e. $1,363,581) prior to the sale of the

Building. Travelers must pay such

amounts to SAR’s contractholders after
3664 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices

all of the equity components of SAR are

liquidated.

The applicant represents that the sale

of the Building was in the best interests

of the plans that were contractholders of

SAR at the time of the transaction. In

addition, the sale of the Building by

SAR ended the prohibited transaction

that resulted from Travelers leasing the

subject office space in the Building.

Therefore, the applicant requests that

the proposed exemption be effective

from December 22, 1993, the date that

Travelers signed the original Lease

documents, until June 24, 1994, the date

the Building was sold.

7. LaSalle served as an independent

fiduciary for SAR in connection with

the Lease during the time that the

Building was part of SAR’s portfolio.

LaSalle is a real estate investment

manager, located in Pine Brook, New

Jersey, which has extensive experience

in advising various clients, including

benefit plan investors, regarding the

sale, leasing and management of office

space. During the 1992 calendar year,

LaSalle received less than one percent

of its total client fees from Travelers.

LaSalle acknowledges that it understood

its duties, responsibilities and liabilities

in acting as a fiduciary under the Act for

SAR.

LaSalle possessed full authority as the

independent fiduciary to act on behalf

of SAR with respect to the Lease. In this

role, LaSalle completed an extensive

analysis of the Lease prior to the

execution of the transaction.

Specifically, LaSalle compared the

proposed terms of the Lease to leases of

other similar office space to unrelated

parties in Northern New Jersey at the

time of the transaction. This market

research was conducted through real

estate brokers, landlords and attorneys.

LaSalle also reviewed the latest

appraisals of the Building.

8. LaSalle states that it required a

number of changes to the terms for the

Lease in order to protect the interests of

SAR. These changes were necessary

mainly because Travelers had suggested

using a standard lease document for a

newly-constructed building, whereas

the Lease actually involves office space

in an existing facility. LaSalle reviewed

the terms of the Lease to assure that the

required modifications were

incorporated into the relevant

documents. Based on Traveler’s

agreement to include the modifications

in the Lease, LaSalle concluded that the

terms of the Lease would be at least as

favorable to SAR as the terms which

would exist in an arm’s-length

transaction and that entering into the

transaction would be in the best

interests of SAR. LaSalle states that an

important factor in its conclusion was

the fact that the Lease’s average gross

rents and equivalent net rents were well

within the acceptable ranges for

comparable market transactions in the

Northern New Jersey area.

With respect to the $27.00 per square

foot tenant improvement allowance

granted to Travelers under the Lease,

LaSalle states that this provision

involved a one-time cost, amortized

over the entire term of the Lease, which

was designed to assure the suitability of

the leased space to the tenant’s needs.

LaSalle represents that similar tenant

improvement allowances and other

concessions were typical of arm’s-length

leases in the Northern New Jersey area

at the time of the transaction and are a

common practice in highly competitive

markets. LaSalle states that the rents

which would have been payable to SAR

under the Lease, and the costs

associated with the Lease, would have

yielded a total net rate of return to SAR

for the entire term of the Lease that

would have been above other arm’slength leases in the Northern New Jersey

area. With respect to the sale of the

Building to Koll for $4,000,000, LaSalle

states that the improvements made to

the office space under the Lease

increased the marketability of the

Building and helped SAR to obtain a

better sale price for the Building on June

24, 1994.

9. LaSalle represents that it monitored

compliance by the parties with the

terms of the Lease during the period that

the Building was part of SAR’s portfolio.

In this regard, LaSalle was responsible

for periodically auditing the parties

performance under the Lease to assure

compliance with such terms. This audit

would include a review of the financial

statements relating to the property and

a physical inspection of the premises

occupied by Travelers. The audit would

examine whether rent payments were

paid in an accurate and timely fashion

as specified by the Lease and whether

tenant improvements were made in

accordance with the terms of the Lease.

In addition, LaSalle states that it took

whatever action was necessary to

safeguard the interests of SAR in

connection with the Lease. Finally,

LaSalle acknowledges that: (i) The

effectiveness of any exemption for the

Lease will be dependent on compliance

by the parties with the terms as set forth

in the Lease during the period covered

by the proposed exemption, including

any limitations, restrictions or other

conditions imposed at that time; (ii) if

any circumstances resulted in a

violation of the terms and conditions of

the Lease or the proposed exemption

during such period, the relief provided

by the exemption will not be available;

and (iii) LaSalle, as the independent

fiduciary for SAR, was responsible at all

times for monitoring compliance by the

parties with the terms and conditions of

the Lease during the period covered by

the proposed exemption.

10. In summary, the applicant

represents that the Lease met the

statutory criteria of section 408(a) of the

Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code

because: (a) LaSalle, a qualified,

independent fiduciary for SAR,

determined that the Lease was in the

best interests of SAR prior to the

transaction; (b) LaSalle determined that

the terms and conditions of the Lease

were at least as favorable to SAR as

those which could have been obtained

from an unrelated party at the time of

the transaction; (c) LaSalle monitored

the Lease and enforced the obligations

of Travelers on behalf of SAR while the

Building was part of SAR’s portfolio;

and (d) Travelers will pay SAR’s

contractholders, as part of any other

payments due to SAR under the terms

of the Settlement Agreement, an amount

necessary to reimburse SAR for

expenses incurred in connection with

the tenant improvements made to the

office space leased to Travelers prior to

the sale of the Building.

Notice to Interested Persons

The applicant states that because of

the large number of potentially

interested parties, it is not possible to

provide a separate copy of the notice of

the proposed exemption to each

participant of all plans that were

invested in SAR during the period

covered by the requested exemption.

Therefore, the only practical form of

notice for such interested persons is

publication of the proposed exemption

in the Federal Register. However, the

applicant states that it will provide

notice to each of the plans that were

contractholders in SAR during the

period covered by the requested

exemption. Such notice shall be made

by first class mail within fifteen (15)

days following the publication of the

proposed exemption in the Federal

Register. This notice shall include a

copy of the notice of proposed

exemption as published in the Federal

Register and a supplemental statement

(see 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2)) which

informs interested persons of their right

to comment on and/or request a hearing

with respect to the proposed exemption.

Comments and requests for a public

hearing are due within forty-five (45)

days following the publication of the

proposed exemption in the Federal

Register.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices 3665

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

E.F. Williams of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8194. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

General Information

The attention of interested persons is

directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the

subject of an exemption under section

408(a) of the Act and/or section

4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve

a fiduciary or other party in interest of

disqualified person from certain other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including any prohibited transaction

provisions to which the exemption does

not apply and the general fiduciary

responsibility provisions of section 404

of the Act, which among other things

require a fiduciary to discharge his

duties respecting the plan solely in the

interest of the participants and

beneficiaries of the plan and in a

prudent fashion in accordance with

section 404(a)(1)(b) of the act; nor does

it affect the requirement of section

401(a) of the Code that the plan must

operate for the exclusive benefit of the

employees of the employer maintaining

the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) Before an exemption may be

granted under section 408(a) of the Act

and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,

the Department must find that the

exemption is administratively feasible,

in the interests of the plan and of its

participants and beneficiaries and

protective of the rights of participants

and beneficiaries of the plan;

(3) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be supplemental to, and

not in derogation of, any other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including statutory or administrative

exemptions and transitional rules.

Furthermore, the fact that a transaction

is subject to an administrative or

statutory exemption is not dispositive of

whether the transaction is in fact a

prohibited transaction; and

(4) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be subject to the express

condition that the material facts and

representations contained in each

application are true and complete, and

that each application accurately

describes all material terms of the

transaction which is the subject of the

exemption.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of

January, 1995.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–1200 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

American Folklife Center; Board of

Trustees Meeting

AGENCY: Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

meeting of the Board of Trustees of the

American Folklife Center. This notice

also describes the functions of the

Center. Notice of this meeting is

required in accordance with Public Law

94–463.

DATES: Friday, February 10, 1994; 9:00

a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Dining Room A, James

Madison Building, Library of Congress,

Washington, DC 20540.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Jabbour, Director, American

Folklife Center, Washington, DC 20540–

8100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to the public. It is

suggested that persons planning to

attend this meeting as observers contact

Doris M. Craig at (202) 707–6590.

The American Folklife Center was

created by the U.S. Congress with

passage of Public Law 94–201, the

American Folklife Preservation Act, in

1976. The Center is directed to

‘‘preserve and present American

folklife’’ through programs of research,

documentation, archival preservation,

live presentation, exhibition,

publications, dissemination, training,

and other activities involving the many

folk cultural traditions of the United

States. The Center is under the general

guidance of a Board of Trustees

composed of members from Federal

agencies and private life widely

recognized for their interest in

American folk traditions and arts.

The Center is structured with a small

core group of versatile professionals

who both carry out programs themselves

and oversee projects done by contract by

others. In the brief period of the Center’s

operation it has energetically carried out

its mandate with programs that provide

coordination, assistance, and model

projects for the field of American

folklife.

Dated: January 6, 1995.

Alan Jabbour,

Director, American Folklife Center.

[FR Doc. 95–1115 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–01–M

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 95–004]

NASA Advisory Council, Aeronautics

Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on

Human Factors; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub.

L. 92–463, as amended, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

announces a NASA Advisory Council,

Aeronautics Advisory Committee,

Subcommittee on Human Factors

meeting.

DATES: February 22, 1995, 8:30 a.m. to

4:30 p.m.; February 23, 1995, 8:30 a.m.

to 4:30 p.m.; and February 24, 1995,

8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Langley Research

Center, Building 1268A, Room 2120,

Hampton, VA 23681–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Gregory W. Condon, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,

CA 94035, 415/604–5567.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to the public up

to the seating capacity of the room.

Agenda topics for the meeting are as

follows:

—NASA Actions on Committee’s

Previous Recommendations

—NASA Human Factors Overview and

Updates on Ames Research Center

and Langley Research Center

Programs

—Crew-Centered Design Philosophy

—Aviation Safety and Automation

Program

—Human Engineering Methods

—Air Traffic Management Human

Factors

It is imperative that the meeting be

held on these dates to accommodate the

scheduling priorities of the key

participants. Visitors will be requested

to sign a visitors register.

Dated: January 12, 1995.

Timothy M. Sullivan,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–1198 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M