Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices 13455

a DEA Certificate of Registration; that he

had previously been convicted of a

felony relating to controlled substances;

and that he submitted false medicaid

claims.

The Order to Show Cause was served

on Respondent by registered mail. On

July 14, 1994, Respondent, through

counsel, submitted a written statement

waiving a hearing, admitting all

allegations except those pertaining to

the false medicaid claims and the

material falsification of his DEA

application. The Deputy Administrator

has considered this statement along

with the investigative file. Accordingly,

the Deputy Administrator now enters

his final order in this matter without a

hearing and based on the investigative

file and the written statement submitted

by Respondent. 21 CFR 1301.57.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

effective September 18, 1991,

Respondent’s medical license was

revoked, pursuant to an Administrative

Consent Agreement, by the State of

South Carolina, Department of Health

and Environmental Services (DHES). As

a result of the DHES’s action,

Respondent is no longer authorized to

prescribe, dispense, administer or

otherwise handle controlled substances

in any schedule in the State of South

Carolina.

The Deputy Administrator concludes

that the DEA does not have the statutory

authority under the Controlled

Substances Act to issue or maintain a

registration if the applicant or registrant

is without authority to handle

controlled substances in the State in

which he/she practices. See 21 U.S.C.

832(f). The Deputy Administrator and

his predecessors have consistently so

held. See Howard J. Reuben, M.D., 52 FR

8375 (1987); Ramon Pla, M.D., Docket

No. 86–54, 51 FR 41168 (1986); Dale D.

Shahan, D.D.S., Docket No. 85–57, 51

FR 23481 (1986); and cases cited

therein.

Since Respondent lacks State

authorization to handle controlled

substances, it is not necessary for the

Deputy Administrator to decide the

other issues alleged in the Order to

Show Cause.

Respondent does not contest that he

is not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in South Carolina.

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

concludes that Respondent’s application

for a DEA Certificate of Registration

must be denied.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the application for a

DEA Certificate of Registration,

submitted by Robert E. Sylvester, D.O.,

be, and it is hereby denied. This order

is effective March 13, 1995.

Dated: March 7, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6115 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–20;

Exemption Application No. D–09690, et al.]

Grant of Individual Exemptions; Iron

Workers Pension Trust of Colorado, et

al.

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions.

SUMMARY: This document contains

exemptions issued by the Department of

Labor (the Department) from certain of

the prohibited transaction restrictions of

the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the

Code).

Notices were published in the Federal

Register of the pendency before the

Department of proposals to grant such

exemptions. The notices set forth a

summary of facts and representations

contained in each application for

exemption and referred interested

persons to the respective applications

for a complete statement of the facts and

representations. The applications have

been available for public inspection at

the Department in Washington, D.C. The

notices also invited interested persons

to submit comments on the requested

exemptions to the Department. In

addition the notices stated that any

interested person might submit a

written request that a public hearing be

held (where appropriate). The

applicants have represented that they

have complied with the requirements of

the notification to interested persons.

No public comments and no requests for

a hearing, unless otherwise stated, were

received by the Department.

The notices of proposed exemption

were issued and the exemptions are

being granted solely by the Department

because, 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 proposed to the

Secretary of Labor.

Statutory Findings

In accordance with section 408(a) of

the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the

Code and the procedures set forth in 29

CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836,

32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon

the entire record, the Department makes

the following findings:

(a) The exemptions are

administratively feasible;

(b) They are in the interests of the

plans and their participants and

beneficiaries; and

(c) They are protective of the rights of

the participants and beneficiaries of the

plans.

Iron Workers Pension Trust of

Colorado (The Pension Plan); and

Colorado Iron Workers (Erection)

Statewide Joint Apprenticeship and

Trust Fund (the Apprenticeship Plan;

together, the Plans) Located in Denver,

Colorado

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–20;

Exemption Application Nos. D–09690 and L–

09691]

Exemption

The restrictions of section 406(a) 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 (D) of the Code, shall not apply

to the loan (the Loan) of $141,601.36 by

the Pension Plan to the Apprenticeship

Plan, under the terms described in the

notice of proposed exemption, provided

the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The Loan represents less than 25%

of the assets of the Pension Plan; (b) the

terms of the Loan are not less favorable

to either Plan than those obtainable in

arm’s-length transactions with unrelated

parties; (c) the trustees of each Plan

approved the Loan as being appropriate

for, and in the best interest of each Plan;

(d) no trustee of either Plan made such

determination on behalf of the other

Plan; and (e) the property securing the

Loan has been appraised by a qualified,

independent appraiser as having a fair

market value in excess of 150% of the

principal amount of the Loan.

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

January 4, 1995 at 60 FR 488.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This exemption is

effective August 11, 1992.

WRITTEN COMMENTS: The Department

received two written comments with

respect to the proposed exemption. One

comment sought further information
13456 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

1Since 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.

2Since Dr. Holzer is the sole shareholder of the

Employer, and the only participant in the Plan,

there is no jurisdiction under Title I of the Act,

pursuant to 29 CFR 2510.3–3(c)(1). There is,

however, jurisdiction under Title II of the Act

pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.

about the proposed exemption, which

the Department provided to the

commentator by telephone. The other

comment did not address any issues

relevant to the proposed exemption.

After consideration of the entire record,

the Department has determined to grant

the exemption as proposed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

H. Lefkowitz of the Department,

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

a toll-free number.)

Wadco, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and

Trust (the Plan) Located in Spring,

Texas

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–21;

Application No. D–09820]

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 (the Sale) of certain

shares of stock (the Stock) by the Plan

to Peter Aswad, a disqualified person

with respect to the Plan.1

This 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 one-time 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

exemption, Wadco files Forms 5330

with the Internal Revenue Service and

pays all applicable excise taxes due

with respect to past prohibited

transactions.

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

January 18, 1995 at 60 FR 3661.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Parr of the Department,

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

a toll-free number.)

Treasure Valley Transplants, Inc.

Money Purchase Pension Plan (the

Plan) Located in Boise, Idaho

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–22;

Application No. D–09874]

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 cash sale (the Sale) of certain real

property (the Property) by the Plan to

Dr. George Holzer, D.V.M. (Dr. Holzer),

a disqualified person with respect to the

Plan;2 provided that the following

conditions are satisfied:

(1) The Sale is a one-time transaction

for cash;

(2) The Plan does not incur any

expenses in connection with the

proposed transaction; and

(3) The consideration paid for the

Property is no less than the fair market

value of the Property as determined by

an independent appraiser.

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

January 30, 1995 at 60 FR 5728.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Virginia J. Miller of the Department,

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

a toll-free number.)

Terry Segal, P.C. Retirement Plans

Located in Boston, MA

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–23;

Exemption Application No. D–09891]

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)

shall not apply to the proposed

purchase by Terry and Harriet Segal of

an interest (the Interest) in a limited

partnership from Mr. Segal’s

individually-directed account (the

Account) in the Terry Segal, P.C.

Pension Plan (the Pension Plan),

provided: (1) The purchase is a one-time

transaction for cash; (2) the Pension

Plan Account is not required to pay any

fees or commissions in connection

therewith; (3) the Interest is appraised

by a qualified, independent appraiser;

and (4) the Pension Plan Account

receives an amount which reflects the

fair market value of the Interest.

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

January 30, 1995 at 60 FR 5729.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jan D. Broady 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 8th day of

March, 1995.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–6117 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P