[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64089-64092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30356]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Rel. No. IC-21586; File No. 812-9386]


Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al.

December 7, 1995.
AGENCY: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of Application for Exemption under the Investment 
Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act'').

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICANTS: Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company 
(``MassMutual''), Massachusetts Mutual Variable Life Separate Account I 
(``Separate Account'') and MML Investors Services, Inc. (``MMLISI'').

RELEVANT 1940 ACT SECTIONS: Order requested pursuant to Section 6(c) of 
the 1940 Act for exemptions from Sections 27(a)(3) and 27(c)(2) of the 
1940 Act and Rules 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(ii) and 6e-3(T)(c)(4)(v) thereunder.

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION: Applicants seek an order: (1) to permit 
them to deduct from premium payments received in connection with 
certain flexible premium variable life insurance policies 
(``Policies'') issued by MassMutual and any other flexible premium 
variable life insurance policies (``Other Policies'') issued by 
MassMutual in the future and made available through the Separate 
Account or any other separate account established in the future by 
MassMutual to support flexible premium variable life insurance 
contracts (``Future Accounts''), an amount less than or approximately 
equal to the amount by which MassMutual's federal tax liabilities will 
be increased as a result of its receipt of those premium payments; and 
(2) to permit the deduction from premium payments in amounts less than 
or equal to the minimum planned premium under the Policies of a sales 
load that is greater than the sales load previously deducted from 
premium payments in amounts exceeding the minimum planned premium.

FILING DATES: The application was filed on December 23, 1994, and 
amended on June 28, 1995, and September 12, 1995.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the application 
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested 
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary 
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by 
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 
p.m. on January 2, 1996, and should be accompanied by proof of service 
on Applicants 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 may request notification of a hearing by writing to 
the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Applicants, Thomas F. English, 
Esq., Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, 1295 State Street, 
Springfield, Massachusetts 01111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Merrick Pickholz, Senior 
Counsel, or Wendy Finck Friedlander, Deputy Chief, Office of Insurance 
Products (Division of Investment Management), at (202) 942-0670.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a summary of the application. 
The complete application is available for a fee from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch.

Applicants' Representations

    1. MassMutual is a mutual life insurance company organized under 
Massachusetts law.
    2. The Separate Account was established as a separate investment 
account of MassMutual for the purpose of investing net premium payments 
received under variable life insurance contracts. It is registered 
under the 1940 Act as a unit investment trust.
    3. MMLISI serves as the principal underwriter for the Policies. 
MMLISI is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and is a member of the National 
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. MMLISI may serve as principal 
underwriter for Other Policies issued by MassMutual in the future.
    4. The Policies are flexible premium variable life insurance 
policies available on a ``Case'' or on an individual basis. Insureds 
purchasing a Policy on a ``Case basis'' share a common employment or 
other institutional relationship. All Policies in any Case are 
aggregated for purposes of determining issue dates, policy dates, 
underwriting requirements and sales load percentages. Individual 
insureds with Case Policies may exercise all rights and privileges 
under the Policy through their employer or other sponsoring entity 
acting as Case administrator. After termination of the employment or 
other relationship, an individual Policy owner may exercise such rights 
and privileges directly. The minimum Case premium is $250,000 of first 
year annualized premiums for all Policies in a Case.
    5. The sales load component of the premium deduction is based on 
the aggregate initial premiums paid for all Policies in a Case 
(``Initial Case Premium''). For Policies issued in a Case with an 
Initial Case Premium of at least $1,000,000, the sales load remains 
level over the life of the Policies. For Policies issued in a Case with 
an Initial Case Premium of less than $1,000,000, the sales load applied 
to any premium payment not exceeding the minimum planned Policy premium 
amount will be set at one level for the first five Policy years, and 
then reset at a lower, level amount after the fifth Policy year. During 
the first five Policy years, premiums are tracked on an annual 
cumulative basis for each Policy, and the sales load will be assessed 
at a higher level for premium payments made at or below the specified 
minimum planned Policy premium.
    6. No surrender charge is imposed under the Policies.
    7. MassMutual deducts a state premium tax charge from each premium 
payment made under the Policies. The level of such charge varies from 
state to state. Currently, state premium tax rates range from 2% to 
3.5%.
    8. MassMutual proposes to deduct from premium payments a charge for 
the federal tax burden imposed by deferred acquisition costs (``DAC 
tax'') in the amount of 1% of premium payments. This amount is, at 
most, approximately equal to or less than the increase in MassMutual's 
federal income tax obligations based upon premiums received under the 
Policies.
    9. In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (``OBRA''), 
Congress amended Section 848 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the 
``Code''). In relevant part, Section 848 requires insurance companies 
to capitalize and amortize over a period of ten years certain general 
expenses for the current year. Under prior law, those expenses would 
have been deductible in full from an insurance company's gross income 
in the current tax year.
    10. The amount of deductions that would have to be capitalized and 
amortized over ten years is based upon ``net premiums'' received in 
connection with certain types of insurance contracts (``specified 
contracts''). More specifically, an amount of expenses equal to a 
percentage of the current year's net premiums (i.e., gross premiums 
minus return premiums and 

[[Page 64090]]
reinsurance premiums) must be capitalized and amortized for each 
specified contract. The amount of general deductions that must be 
capitalized varies, depending upon the type of contract to which the 
premiums received relate, according to a schedule set forth in Section 
848. The Policies fall into the category of individual life insurance 
contracts under Section 848 for which 7.7% of net premiums received 
must be capitalized and amortized.
    11. The impact of the DAC tax on MassMutual may be quantified as 
follows. For each $10,000 of premiums received by MassMutual under the 
Policies in a given year, MassMutual must capitalize $770 (i.e., 7.7% 
of $10,000); $38.50 (one-half year's portion of the ten-year 
amortization) of this amount may be deducted in the current year. The 
remaining $731.50 (i.e., $770 minus $38.50) is subject to taxation at 
the corporate tax rate of 35 percent. As a result, MassMutual would owe 
approximately $256.03 more in taxes for the current year than before 
the OBRA tax changes. However, this current tax increase will be offset 
partially by deductions allowed during the next ten years as a result 
of amortizing the remainder of the $770-$77 in each of the following 
nine years, and $38.50 in year ten. When estimating the economic impact 
of the tax increase, the benefit to MassMutual of being able to deduct 
$77.00 per year for each of the subsequent nine years and $38.50 for 
the tenth year must be discounted, so that only the present value of 
those deductions would be subtracted from the $256.03.
    12. To the extent that capital must be used by MassMutual to 
satisfy its increased federal tax burden under Section 848, such 
capital used to satisfy this increased federal tax burden under Section 
848 is, in essence, MassMutual's after tax rate of return--i.e., the 
return MassMutual seeks on invested capital--of at least 8 percent. 
Accordingly, in the business judgment of MassMutual, a discount rate of 
at least 8% is appropriate for use in calculating the present value of 
MassMutual's future tax deductions resulting from the amortization 
described above. To the extent that the 8% discount rate is lower than 
MassMutual's actual after tax rate of return, Applicants submit that a 
measure of comfort is provided that the calculation of MassMutual's 
increased tax burden attributable to the receipt of premiums will 
continue to be reasonable over time, even if the corporate tax rate 
applicable to MassMutual is reduced, or its after tax rate of return is 
lowered.
    13. MassMutual considered a number of factors in determining the 
expected after tax rate of return used in arriving at this discount 
rate. For example, MassMutual identified the level of investment return 
that can be expected to be earned over the long term on various types 
of fixed income securities, including the expected yield on 30-year 
U.S. Treasury bonds and high-grade corporate bonds, and adjusted these 
rates in an amount considered appropriate to compensated it for the 
risks associated with allocating capital to a lien of business, 
esp0ecially a newer line of business without a performance history. 
MassMutual also considered whether this expected after tax rate of 
return is within the normal range in the life insurance industry.
    14. Assuming a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, and applying a 
discount rate of 8 percent, the present value of the federal income tax 
effect of the increased deductions allowable in the following ten years 
is $174.60. Because this amount partially offsets the increased tax 
burden, Section 848 imposes an increased tax burden on MassMutual with 
a present value equal to $81.43 (i.e., $256.03 minus $174.60) for each 
$10,000 of net premiums received.
    15. Because state premium taxes are deductible in computing federal 
income taxes, MassMutual does not incur incremental income tax when it 
passes on state premium taxes to Policy owners. In contrast, federal 
income taxes are not deductible in computing MassMutual's federal 
income taxes. To offset fully the impact of Section 848, MassMutual 
must impose an additional charge that would make it whole not only for 
the $81.43 additional tax burden attributable to Section 848, but also 
for the tax on the additional $81.43 itself. This additional charge may 
be determined by dividing $81.43 by the complement of the 35% federal 
corporate income tax rate (i.e., 65%), resulting in an additional 
charge of $125.28 for (i.e., 1.25% of) each $10,000 of net premiums.
    16. Based on prior experience, MassMutual believes that it is 
reasonable to expect that virtually all future deductions will be fully 
taken. MassMutual submits that a charge of 1% will reimburse it for the 
impact of Section 848 on its federal tax liabilities. Applicants 
represent that a 1% charge is reasonably related to MassMutual's 
increased federal tax burden under Section 848, taking into account the 
benefit to MassMutual of the amortization permitted by Section 848 and 
the use by MassMutual of a discount rate of 8% in computing the future 
deductions resulting from such amortization.
    17. Applicants also represent that the charge to be deducted under 
Other Policies by MassMutual pursuant to the relief requested will be 
reasonably related to MassMutual's increased federal tax burden under 
Section 848, taking into account the benefit to MassMutual of the 
amortization permitted by Section 848, and the use by MassMutual of an 
appropriate discount rate (i.e., a rate not less than MassMutual's 
expected after tax rate of return) in computing the cost of the 
increased tax burden ad the present value of the future deductions 
resulting from such amortization.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act, in relevant part, authorizes the 
Commission, by order upon application to exempt any person or 
transaction or class of persons or transactions from the provisions of 
the 1940 Act or rules thereunder, if and to the extent that the 
exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and 
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly 
intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act.
    2. Applicants request an order of the Commission pursuant to 
Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act exempting them from the provisions of 
Section 27(c)2) of the 1940 Act and Rule 6e-3(T)(c)(4)(v) thereunder to 
permit deductions from premium payments received in connection with the 
Policies and Other Policies an amount that is reasonable in relation to 
MassMutual's federal income tax burden related to the receipt of such 
premiums. Applicants further request an exemption from Rule 6e-
3(T)(c)(4)(v) of the 1940 Act to permit the proposed deductions to be 
treated as other than sales load.
    3. Applicants also request that the Commission grant an order 
exempting them from the ``stair step'' provisions of Section 27(a)(3) 
of the 1940 Act and Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(ii) thereunder in connection 
with the sale of units of interest in the Separate Account under the 
Policies.

Section 27(c)(2) and Rule 6e-3(T)(c)(4)--DAC Tax Exemption

    1. The Separate Account is, and the Future Accounts will be, 
regulated under the 1940 Act as if they were the issuers of periodic 
payment plan certificates. Accordingly, the Separate Account, the 
Future Accounts, MassMutual (as the depositor for the Separate Account) 
and MMLISI (as principal underwriter of the Policies) 

[[Page 64091]]
are deemed to be subject to Section 27 of the 1940 Act.
    2. Section 27(c)(2) of the 1940 Act prohibits the sale of periodic 
payment plan certificates unless the proceeds of all payments (except 
such amounts as are deducted for sales load) are held under an 
indenture or agreement containing in substance the provisions required 
by Section 26(a) (2) and (3) of the 1940 Act. Sections 27(a)(1) and 
27(h)(1) of the 1940 Act limit sales loads on periodic payment plan 
certificates to 9% of total payments to be made.
    3. Rule 6e(3)(T) provides a broad range of exemptive relief for the 
offering of flexible premium variable life insurance policies such as 
the Policies and the Other Policies. Paragraph (b)(13)(iii) of Rule 6e-
3(T) provides relief from 27(c)(2) of the 1940 Act to the extent 
necessary to permit ``[t]he deduction of premium or other taxes imposed 
by any state or other governmental entity.'' Applicants submit that the 
exemptive relief needed to permit the deduction of a DAC tax charge is 
provided without regard to whether the taxes are imposed by states or 
other governmental entities. However, Applicants acknowledge the 
argument that, although it increases an insurance company's tax 
liability because of the type of premium payments received, Section 848 
of the Code does not purport to impose a tax on life insurance 
companies. Accordingly, Applicants request an exemption from Section 
27(c)(2) to address any concern that the proposed DAC tax charge might 
not be deemed to be entitled to the exemptive relief from that Section 
provided by Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(iii).
    4. Rule 6e-3(T)(c)(4) defines ``sales load'' as the excess of 
premium payments over certain itemized charges and deductions. A 
deduction for an insurer's DAC tax expense as described above does not 
fall squarely into any of those itemized charges or deductions. 
Arguably, then, such a deduction may be treated as ``sales load'' under 
a literal reading of Rule 6e-3(T)(c)(4). Applicants request an 
exemption from Rule 6e-3(T)(c)(4)(v) to permit the proposed DAC tax 
charge to be assessed without treating the charge as a deduction to 
cover sales and distribution expenses.
    5. Applicants submit that there is no public policy reason for 
treating as deductions made to pay costs attributable to federal taxes 
(e.g., the proposed DAC tax charge) as sales load. Applicants also 
assert that language in the releases in which the Commission adopted 
and amended Rule 6e-3(T) does not suggest that such a result was 
intended, despite the literal wording of paragraph (c)(4) of the Rule.
    6. Applicants assert that the public policy that underlies Section 
27(a)(1) of the 1940 Act is to prevent excessive sales loads from being 
charged in connection with the sale of periodic payment plan 
certificates. Applicants submit that the treatment of a DAC tax charge 
as sales load would not further this legislative purpose. Applicants 
state that the Commission has concurred with this conclusion by 
excluding deductions for state premium taxes from the definition of 
``sales load'' in paragraph (c)(4) of Rule 6e-3(T).
    7. Applicants asset that, in evaluating whether it is consistent 
with the purposes and policies of the 1940 Act for deductions made to 
pay federal taxes to be excluded from sales load, it is helpful to 
examine the definition of ``sales load'' in Section 2(a)(35) of the 
1940 Act. Section 2(a)(35) of the 1940 Act defines ``sales load'' as 
the difference between the price of a security offered to the public 
and that portion of the proceeds from its sale which is received and 
invested or held for investment by the issuer (or in the case of a unit 
investment trust, by the depositor or trustee), less any portion of 
such difference deducted for trustee's or custodian's fees, insurance 
premiums, issue taxes, or administrative expenses or fees which are not 
properly chargeable to sales or promotional activities. Applicants note 
that both Section 2(a)(35) and Rule 6e-3(T)(c)(4) define ``sales load'' 
derivatively.
    8. Applicants further assert that Section 2(a)(35) excludes from 
the definition of ``sales load'' under the 1940 Act deductions from 
payments for ``issue taxes.'' Applicants submit that issue taxes 
incurred as a result of selling an investment company security would be 
similar to premium taxes incurred as a result of the sale of a variable 
life insurance policy. This suggests that it is consistent with the 
1940 Act's policies to exclude from the definition of ``sales load'' in 
Rule 6e-3(T) deductions made to pay federal tax obligations incurred as 
a result of receipt of premiums.
    9. Applicants submit that the reference in Section 2(a)(35) to 
administrative expenses or fees that are ``not properly chargeable to 
sales or promotional activities'' suggests that the only deductions 
intended to fall within the definition of ``sales load'' are those that 
are properly chargeable to such activities. Because the proposed 
deductions will be used to compensate MassMutual for its increased 
federal tax burdens attributable to the receipt of premiums, and are 
not properly chargeable to sales or promotional activities, Applicants 
assert that the language in Section 2(a)(35) indicates that treating 
the proposed DAC tax charge as other than sales load is consistent with 
the policies of the 1940 Act.
    10. Finally, Applicants state that the limitation to state premium 
taxes of the premium tax exclusion from the definition of ``sales 
load'' in Rule 6e-3(T)(c)(4)(v) probably is an historical accident. 
When Rule 6e-3(T) was adopted and later amended, the federal government 
did not impose taxes based upon receipt of premiums. Applicants note 
that nothing in the Commission releases dealing with Rule 6e-3(T) 
suggests that the exclusion of premium tax deductions from the 
definition of sales load was based on the type of governmental entity 
imposing such taxes.
    11. Applicants assert that the requested relief with respect to the 
Policies or Other Policies issued through the Separate Account or 
Future Accounts is appropriate in the public interest because it would 
promote competitiveness in the variable life insurance market by 
eliminating the need for MassMutual to file redundant exemptive 
applications, thereby reducing administrative expenses and maximizing 
the efficient use of its resources. The delay and expense involved in 
having to seek exemptive relief repeatedly would impair MassMutual's 
ability to take advantage effectively of business opportunities as they 
arise. In addition, Applicants state that the requested relief is 
consistent with the purposes of the 1940 Act and the protection of 
investors for the same reasons. If Mass Mutual was required to seek 
exemptive relief repeatedly with respect to the same issues addressed 
in this request for relief, investors would not receive any benefit or 
additional protection thereby and might be disadvantaged as a result of 
MassMutual's increased overhead expenses.

Conditions for Relief

    1. Applicants represent that MassMutual will monitor the 
reasonableness of the 1% charge.
    2. Applicants represent that the registration statement for each 
Policy or Other Policy under which the 1% charge is deducted will: (i) 
disclose the charge; (ii) explain the purpose of the charge; and (iii) 
state that the charge is reasonable in relation to MassMutual's 
increased federal tax burden as a result of applying Section 848 of the 
Code.
    3. Applicants represent that the registration statement for each 
Policy or Other Policy under which the 1% 

[[Page 64092]]
charge is deducted will contain as an exhibit an actuarial opinion as 
to: (i) the reasonableness of the charge in relation to MassMutual's 
increased federal tax burden resulting from the application of Section 
848 of the Code; (ii) the reasonableness of the expected after tax rate 
of return that is used in calculating the charge; and (iii) the 
appropriateness of the factors used to determine MassMutual's expected 
after tax rate of return.

Section 27(a)(3) and Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(ii)--``Stair Step'' Exemption

    1. Section 27(a)(3) of the 1940 Act provides that the amount of 
sales load which may be deducted from any of the first twelve monthly 
payments on a periodic payment plan certificate may not exceed 
proportionately the amount deducted from any other such payment, and 
that the sales load deducted from any subsequent payment may not exceed 
proportionately the amount deducted from any other subsequent payment.
    2. Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(ii) provides an exemption from Section 
27(a)(3), provided that the proportionate amount of sales load deducted 
from any payment does not exceed the proportionate amount deducted from 
any prior payment, unless an increase is caused by reductions in the 
annual cost of insurance or in sales load for amounts transferred to a 
variable life insurance policy from another plan of insurance.
    3. Under MassMutual's proposed sales load structure for Policies 
issued in a Case with an Initial Case Premium of less than $1,000,000, 
during the first five Policy years, MassMutual assesses a front-end 
sales load of 15% of premium payments made which are less than or equal 
to the minimum planned Policy premium, and 6% of premium payments made 
which exceed the minimum planned Policy premium. After the fifth Policy 
Year, the sales load percentages for these Policies will decrease to 6% 
on all premium payments. Thus, if during the first four years of a 
Policy for which the Initial Case Premium paid was less than 
$1,000,000, a Policy owner makes a premium payment which exceeds the 
minimum planned Policy premium, the percentage of sales load deducted 
(in the next Policy Year) from that portion of any premium payment 
which is less than or equal to the minimum planned Policy premium would 
exceed that deducted from the prior premium payment. Applicants request 
an exemption from the requirements of Section 27(a)(3) of the 1940 Act 
and Rule 6e-3(T)(b0(13)(ii) thereunder because the sales load structure 
under the Policies appears to violate the ``stair-step'' provisions 
articulated in Section 27(a)(3) of the 1940 Act. Moreover, Applicants 
note, the exemption from Section 27(a)(3) provided by Rule 6e-
3(T)(b)(13)(ii) does not appear to cover the case at hand.
    4. Applicants represent that MassMutual has designed the Policies 
so that they comply with Rule 6e-3(T)'s sales load limitations and are 
``refund proof'': i.e., sales load deductions from premium payments 
will not exceed the sales load limitations specified in Rule 6e-
3(T)(b)(13)(i)(A) and will never require the repayment of any sales 
charges pursuant to Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(v)(A).
    5. Applicants further represent that MassMutual has designed the 
sales load structure under the Policies to give Policy owners 
significant flexibility with respect to the timing and amount of 
premium payments, while permitting MassMutual to deduct only those 
charges deemed necessary to defray distribution expenses and support 
the benefits under the Policies.
    6. Applicants represent that the proposed sales load design 
provides a significant benefit to Policy owners by passing through to 
them a portion of MassMutual's savings resulting from the lower 
distribution costs associated with Policies having an Initial Case 
Premium of $1,000,000 or less and for which premium payments are made 
during the first five Policy Years which exceed the minimum planned 
Policy premium set for that Policy year. Applicants submit that it 
would not be in the interest of Policy owners to require the imposition 
of a sales charge on premium payments in excess of the minimum planned 
Policy premium, or subsequent premium payments that are higher than 
Applicants deem necessary.
    7. Applicants assert that Section 27(a)(3) was designed to address 
abuses involving periodic payment plans under which large amounts of 
front-end sales load are deducted so early in life of the plan that an 
investor redeeming in the early periods would recoup little of his or 
her investment. MassMutual anticipates that: (i) a substantial number 
of the Policies will be sold in connection with rollover transactions 
effectuated pursuant to Section 1035 of the Code; and (ii) under such a 
scenario, there will be a higher occurrence of premium payments made in 
the first Policy year which exceed the minimum planned premium payment 
by Policy owners purchasing Policies having an Initial Case Premium of 
less than $1,000,000. For these reasons, Applicants submit that the 
proposed sales load structure would not present the type of abuse that 
Section 27(a)(3) was designed to prevent.
    8. Moreover, Applicants assert that, to the extent that owners of 
Policies with an Initial Case Premium of less than $1,000,000 make 
premium payments during the first Policy year which exceed the minimum 
planned Policy premium, MassMutual's proposed sales load structure will 
cause a greater proportion of the Policies' sales charges to be 
deducted later than they otherwise might have been deducted. In this 
regard, Applicants note that MassMutual could have decided to assess a 
sales load of 30% on premium payments less than or equal to the minimum 
planned Policy premium made during the first Policy year, and 7.89% on 
premium payments made thereafter. Applicants submit that, by spreading 
sales charges more evenly over the life of a Policy, MassMutual's sales 
load structure furthers the purposes of Section 27(a)(3) of the 1940 
Act.

Conclusion

    Applicants submit that, for the reasons and upon the facts set 
forth above, the requested exemptions would be appropriate in the 
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the 
purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the 1940 
Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30356 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M