25912 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices

4Since Mr. Flynn is the sole stockholder of JFA

and the Flynns 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) and (c). However,

there is jurisdiction under Title II of the Act

pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.

all excise taxes applicable under section

4975(a) of the Code that are due by

reason of certain prior prohibited lease

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 April

4, 1996 at 61 FR 15142.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Karin Weng of the Department,

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

a toll-free number.)

James Flynn & Associates, Ltd. Pension

Plan (the Plan), Located in Scottsdale,

Arizona

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 96–42;

Exemption Application No. D–10164]

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: (1) the transfer of a parcel of real

property (Lot 1) to the Plan by James T.

and Britt Marie Flynn (the Flynns),

disqualified persons with respect to the

Plan, together with a cash payment by

the Flynns to the Plan of $29,000, and

(2) the transfer of a parcel of real

property (Lot 2) by the Plan to the

Flynns, provided the following

conditions are satisfied: (a) the Plan

receives not less than the fair market

value of Lot 2 as of the date of the

transfers; (b) the fair market values of

Lots 1 and 2 are determined by a

qualified, independent appraiser; and

(c) the Flynns are the only participants

in the Plan to be affected by the

transactions, and they both desire that

the transactions be consummated.4

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 April

4, 1996 at 61 FR 15144.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

H. Lefkowitz of the Department,

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

a toll-free number.)

Pierre W. Mornell, M.D., A Sole

Proprietorship, Defined Benefit Plan

(the Plan), Located in Mill Valley,

California

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 96–43;

Exemption Application No. D–10170]

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 sale of certain unimproved real

property located in Mill Valley,

California (the Property) by the Plan to

Pierre W. Mornell and Linda C. Mornell,

parties in interest with respect to the

Plan; provided that the following

conditions are satisfied:

(A) All terms and conditions of the

transaction are no less favorable to the

Plan than those which the Plan could

obtain in an arm’s-length transaction

with an unrelated party;

(B) The Plan receives a cash purchase

price for the Property in the amount of

the fair market value of the Property;

and

(C) The Plan does not incur any

expenses or suffer any loss with respect

to the transaction.

For a more complete statement of the

facts and representations supporting

this exemption, refer to the notice of

proposed exemption published on

March 22, 1996 at 61 FR 11894.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald Willett 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, D.C., this 20th day

of May, 1996.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 96–12984 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

Advisory Council on Employee Welfare

and Pension Benefits Plans; Full

Council Meeting Notice

Pursuant to the authority contained in

Section 512 of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29

U.S.C. 1142, a full council meeting of

the Advisory Council on Employee

Welfare and pension Benefit Plans will

be held on June 19, 1996, in Room

N3437 C&D, U.S. Department of Labor

building, Third and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20210.

The purpose of the meeting, which

will be from 3:30 until 4:30 p.m., is to

hear progress being made by the three

working groups of the council.

Members of the public are encouraged

to file a written statement pertaining to

any topic concerning ERISA by

submitting 20 copies on or before May

27, 1996, to Sharon Morrissey, Acting

Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory

Council, U.S. Department of Labor,

Suite N–5677, 200 Constitution Avenue

NW., Washington, D.C. 20210.

Individuals or representatives or

organizations wishing to address the

Advisory Council should forward their

request to the Acting Executive

Secretary of telephone (202) 219–8753.

Oral presentations will be limited to 10

minutes, but an extended statement may

be submitted for the record. Individuals

with disabilities, who need special

accommodations, should contact Sharon

Morrissey by May 27 at the address

indicated in this notice.

Organizations or individuals may also

submit statements for the record

without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of

such statements should be sent to the

Acting Executive Secretary of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Notices 25913

Advisory Council at the above address.

Papers will be accepted and included in

the record of the meeting if received on

or before May 27, 1996.

Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of

May, 1996.

Olena Berg,

Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13009 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Summary of Decisions Granting in

Whole or in Part Petitions for

Modification

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of affirmative decisions

issued by the Administrators for Coal

Mine Safety and Health and Metal and

Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health on

petitions for modification of the

application of mandatory safety

standards.

SUMMARY: Under section 101(c) of the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of

1977, the Secretary of Labor may modify

the application of a mandatory safety

standard to a mine if the Secretary

determines either that an alternate

method exists at a specific mine that

will guarantee no less protection for the

miners affected than that provided by

the standard, or that the application of

the standard at a specific mine will

result in a diminution of safety to the

affected miners.

Summaries of petitions received by

the Secretary appear periodically in the

Federal Register. Final decisions on

these petitions are based upon the

petitioner’s statements, comments and

information submitted by interested

persons, and a field investigation of the

conditions at the mine. MSHA has

granted or partially granted the requests

for modification submitted by the

petitioners listed below. In some

instances, the decisions are conditioned

upon compliance with stipulations

stated in the decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Petitions and copies of the final

decisions are available for examination

by the public in the Office of Standards,

Regulations, and Variances, MSHA,

Room 627, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, Virginia 22203. Contact

Barbara Barron at 703–235–1910.

Dated: May 14, 1996.

Patricia W. Silvey,

Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and

Variances.

Affirmative Decisions on Petitions for

Modification

Docket No.: M–93–024–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 13805.

Petitioner: Peabody Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 77.900.

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to use a magnetic motor starter

instead of tripping a circuit breaker for

ground phase protection and

undervoltage protection, use a circuit

breaker for short circuit protection, and

use the magnetic motor starter and

circuit breaker for overload protection

for serving portable or mobile phase

alternating current equipment

considered acceptable alternative

method. Granted Hawthorn Mine with

conditions.

Docket No.: M–93–087–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 39236.

Petitioner: Neumeister Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 75.360(b)(5).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to examine each seal for

physical damage from the slope gunboat

during the preshift examination after an

air quantity reading is taken in by the

intake portal, to test for the quantity and

quality of air at the intake air split

locations off the slope in the gangway

portion of the working section and

physically examine the entire length of

the slope once a month considered

acceptable alternative method. Granted

for No. 2 Slope Mine with conditions for

examinations of seals in the intake air

haulage slope of this mine.

Docket No.: M–93–089–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 39236.

Petitioner: Neumeister Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002–1(a).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to use nonpermissible electric

equipment within 150 feet of the pillar

line and to suspend equipment

operation anytime the methane

concentration at the equipment reaches

0.25 percent, either during operation or

a preshift examination considered

acceptable alternative method. Granted

for No. 2 Slope Mine with conditions for

the use of nonpermissible electric drags

and associated nonpermissible electric

components located within 150 feet

from pillar workings.

Docket No.: M–93–090–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 39236.

Petitioner: Neumeister Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 75.1100–2(a)(2).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to use only portable fire

extinguishers to replace existing

requirements where rock dust, water

cars, and other water storage are not

practical considered acceptable

alternative method. Granted for No. 2

Slope Mine with conditions for

firefighting equipment in the working

section.

Docket No.: M–93–091–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 39236.

Petitioner: Neumeister Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 75.1200 (d), (h),

and (i).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to use cross-sections instead of

contour lines through the intake slope,

at locations of rock tunnel connections

between veins, and at 1,000 feet

intervals of advance from the intake

slope and to limit the mapping of mine

workings above and below to those

present within 100 feet of the vein being

mined except when veins are

interconnected to other veins beyond

the 100 feet limit through rock tunnels

considered acceptable alternative

method. Granted for No. 2 Slope Mine

with conditions for the use of crosssections, in lieu of contour lines,

limiting the mapping of mines above or

below this mine to those within 100 feet

of the vein being mined.

Docket No.: M–93–092–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 39236.

Petitioner: Neumeister Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 75.1202–1(a).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to revise and supplement mine

maps on an annual basis instead of the

required 6 month interval and to update

maps daily by hand notations

considered acceptable alternative

method. Granted for No. 2 Slope Mine

with conditions for annual revisions

and supplements of the mine map.

Docket No.: M–93–099–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 39237.

Petitioner: E & E Fuels Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 75.1100–2(a)(2).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to use only portable fire

extinguishers to replace existing

requirements where rock dust, water

cars, and other water storage are not

practical considered acceptable

alternative method. Granted for Orchard

Slope Mine with conditions for

firefighting equipment in the working

section.

Docket No.: M–93–100–C.

FR Notice: 58 FR 39237.

Petitioner: E & E Fuels Coal Company.

Reg Affected: 30 CFR 75.1200 (d), (h),

and (i).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal to use cross-sections instead of

contour lines through the intake slope,

at locations of rock tunnel connections

between veins, and at 1,000 feet