Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-03-22 · Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor · Notices

Notices. Notice of Proposed Exemption

23,027 words·~105 min read·/register/2007/03/22/07-1404·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration [Application No. D-11408, et al.] Proposed Exemption; The DeRose Dental Offices, Inc., S.C. Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemption. SUMMARY: This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of a proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or 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 requests for a hearing on the pending exemption, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this **Federal Register** Notice. Comments and requests 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. ADDRESSES: All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. __, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via e-mail or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by e-mail to: *moffitt.betty@dol.gov,* or by FAX to
(202)219-0204 by the end of the scheduled comment period. The applications for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Notice to Interested Persons Notice of the proposed exemption 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 exemption were requested in an 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, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), 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 exemption 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. The DeRose Dental Offices, Inc., S.C. Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan), Located in Racine, Wisconsin [Application No. D-11408] Proposed Exemption The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act 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 section 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975(a) and
(b)of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(E)of the Code, shall not apply to the December 29, 2006 sale by the Plan of 2,174 shares of stock (the Stock) in Wisconsin Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) each to Francesca DeRose (Francesca) and Nicolet DeRose (Nicolet), parties in interest with respect to the Plan, provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a)The sales of the Stock were one-time transactions for cash;
(b)The Plan paid no commissions or other fees in connection with the sales;
(c)The terms of the transactions were at least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could obtain in similar transactions with an unrelated party; and
(d)the sales price of the Stock was determined by a qualified, independent appraiser. DATES: *Effective Date:* The proposed exemption, if granted, will be effective as of December 29, 2006. Summary of Facts and Representations 1. The Plan is an individual account plan established by DeRose Dental Offices, Inc., S.C. (the Employer), a professional dental corporation located in Racine, Wisconsin. As of December 31, 2005 (the Last Valuation Date), the Plan had 10 participants and beneficiaries, and had total assets of $1,951,401. Francesca and Nicolet, the only dentists employed by the Employer, are participants in the Plan. Francesca, along with Ronald S. Rizzo, is also the co-trustee of the Plan. As of the Last Valuation Date, Francesca's account value was $747,061.71, and Nicolet's account value was $986,336.53. These account values constitute approximately 88.83% of the total assets of the Plan. The applicants represent that since the Last Valuation Date, the values of the participants' respective accounts have not significantly changed. 2. Among other assets, the Plan held shares (i.e., the Stock) of the Company, a closely-held bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and a financial holding company under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Company is the 100% owner of Banks of Wisconsin (the Bank), a full service community bank with four locations in Wisconsin. As of December 8, 2006, 535,594 shares of Stock were issued and outstanding. 3. The applicants represent that the Plan initially acquired shares of common stock of the Bank in the secondary private stock offering by the Bank on July 29, 2003 at a price of $23 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $100,004. On December 31, 2004, the Company was formed as a holding company for all of the shares of the common stock of the Bank. As of January 1, 2005, all of the shares of the Bank were converted into shares of the Stock. The price per share in the secondary offering was determined by the Board of Directors (the Board) of the Bank. The shares were offered to existing shareholders of the Bank and to the Plan. The offer was not underwritten by any third party. The applicants represent that the Board determined the secondary offering price by calculating a hypothetical fair return for a start up bank after three years of operations and experience. All of the shares of the Bank were sold in the secondary offering, which raised approximately $2.8 million for the Bank. The Bank's initial private stock offering occurred on June 26, 2000 at a price of $20 per share. The Plan has not acquired any additional shares of Stock since the acquisition on July 29, 2003. The applicants represent that the Bank is, and at the time of the acquisition of the Stock by the Plan was, an entity unrelated to the Plan, and not a party in interest with respect to the Plan within the meaning of section 3(14) of the Act. The Company has at all times been an entity unrelated to the Plan. 4. Francesca also holds 3,950 shares of the Stock individually. In addition, David Barnes, her husband and the Chairman of the Board of the Bank, holds 37,777 shares of Stock individually and 2,050 shares as trustee of one or more custodial accounts established under the Uniform Transfer to Minors Act. Together, Mr. Barnes and Francesca hold approximately 9.02% of the issued and outstanding shares of Stock. Nicolet in her individual capacity holds 375 shares of Stock. Mr. Rizzo, the co-trustee of the Plan, holds 15,616 shares of the Stock individually, which represents approximately 2.92% of the issued and outstanding Stock. The Stock held by the Plan represented 0.81% of the issued and outstanding Stock. During the period of its ownership of the Stock, the Plan earned no dividends or other income and incurred no expenses with respect to the Stock. Except for Mr. Barnes, neither Mr. Rizzo, nor any family member (including the Plan participants) is an officer, director or controlling shareholder of the Bank or the Company. 5. The applicants have requested a retroactive prohibited transaction exemption for the purchase of 2,174 shares of the Stock by Francesca, and the purchase of 2,174 shares of the Stock by Nicolet. Both transactions occurred on December 29, 2006. The applicants represent that due to business and income tax considerations, the Company and Bank are both seeking to make a Subchapter S election, to be effective as of January 1, 2007. Although a tax-exempt qualified trust forming part of a stock bonus, pension or profit-sharing plan, such as the Plan and its related trust, can be an S corporation eligible shareholder, such exempt trust is required to pay the unrelated business income tax
(UBIT)on all income attributable to ownership of stock of an S corporation, using the income tax rates. UBIT is due whether or not the S corporation actually distributes the income to the trust. In addition, any gain on the sale of the S corporation stock by a trust is generally subject to UBIT. Because the Plan would incur unfavorable tax consequences as a result of an S corporation election and the continued holding of the Stock, Nicolet and Francesca desired to purchase the Stock from the Plan. The decision on behalf of the Plan to sell the Stock was made solely by Mr. Rizzo in his capacity as co-trustee. 6. The Stock was independently appraised by an independent appraiser, Mercer Capital (Mercer). Mercer is an independent financial advisor experienced in the financial analysis and valuation of financial institutions. The Company retained Mercer, in connection with the S corporation election and related merger transaction, to assist the Board in determining a fair price for the Stock. Mercer delivered an appraisal to the Board at the Board's meeting on October 17, 2006, using the Company's September 30, 2006 financial data, whereby it determined the fair market value of the Stock to be $44 per share. On November 1, 2006, Mercer issued an opinion to the Board that the cash consideration to be received by the Bank's shareholders was fair to the shareholders. In arriving at its opinion and appraisal, Mercer reviewed and analyzed the Company's audited financial statements, quarterly reports, the Company's financial forecasts, the historical trading prices and activity for the Stock, the nature and financial terms of certain other merger and acquisition transactions involving banks, financial studies, analyses and investigations and relevant financial, economic and market criteria. In addition, Mercer met with the management of the Company to discuss past and current operations, financial condition and prospects, as well as the result of regulatory examinations. 7. On the date of the sale of the Stock to Francesca and Nicolet by the Plan, Mr. Rizzo, in his capacity as co-trustee for the Plan, contacted Mr. Andy Gibbs at Mercer in order to obtain an updated appraisal of the Stock or a confirmation that the value of Stock since the date of the appraisal had not changed. Mr. Gibbs advised Mr. Rizzo that Mercer was aware of no circumstances that would change its appraisal of the Stock as of September 30, 2006, and that the appraisal report and appraised value of $44 per share of Stock remained current as of the date of sale. 8. The applicants represent that there is no active trading market for the Stock, and no market is expected to develop for the Stock upon the consummation of the merger and the S corporation election. The sale of the Stock to Francesca and Nicolet presented an opportunity to provide better liquidity and diversification of investments in the Plan at a fair price. The applicants represent that the Plan benefited from significant appreciation in the value of the Stock since purchasing the Stock in the secondary offering. As demonstrated by the appraisal by Mercer, the value of the Stock as of September 30, 2006 ($44) significantly exceeds the purchase price paid by the Plan for the Stock ($23 per share on July 23, 2003) and the value of the Stock on the Last Valuation Date, which was determined to be $25 per share based on recent private sale transactions. 9. In summary, the applicants represent that the subject transactions satisfy the criteria contained in section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a)The terms of the transactions were at least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could have obtained in similar transactions with an unrelated party;
(b)the sales of the Stock were one-time transactions for cash, and the Plan paid no commissions or other fees in connection with the sales;
(c)the sales price of the Stock was determined by a qualified, independent appraiser who confirmed the fair market value as of the date of the sales;
(d)the Plan benefited from significant appreciation in the Stock since the time of its acquisition in July, 2003; and
(e)the sales of the Stock provide better liquidity and diversification of investments in the Plan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone
(202)693-8546. (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 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 16th day of March, 2007. Ivan Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-5209 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration [Application No. D-11345] Notice of Proposed Individual Exemption To Amend and Replace Prohibited Transaction Exemption
(PTE)2000-34, Involving the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (FML), Located in Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of proposed individual exemption to amend and replace PTE 2000-34. This document contains a notice of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of a proposed individual exemption which, if granted, would amend and replace PTE 2000-34 (65 FR 41732, July 6, 2000), an exemption granted to FML. PTE 2000-34, relates to
(1)the receipt of certain stock (Plan Stock) issued by Fidelity Insurance Group, Inc. (Group), a wholly owned subsidiary of FML, or
(2)the receipt of plan credits (Plan Credits), by or on behalf of a FML mutual member (the Mutual Member), which is an employee benefit plan (the Plan), other than the Employee Pension Plan of Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company, in exchange for such Mutual Member's membership interest (the Membership Interest) in FML, in accordance with the terms of a plan of rehabilitation (the Third Amended Plan), approved by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (the Court) and supervised by both the Court and a rehabilitator (the Rehabilitator) appointed by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner (the Commissioner). These transactions are described in a notice of proposed exemption (65 FR 18359, April 7, 2000), which underlies PTE 2000-34. If granted, this proposed exemption would incorporate by reference many of the conditions contained in PTE 2000-34. The proposed exemption would also revise and update certain facts and representations set forth in PTE 2000-34 to include the terms of the Fourth Amended Plan of Rehabilitation (the Fourth Amended Plan) which supersedes the Third Amended Plan upon which PTE 2000-34 is based. DATES: *Effective Date:* If granted, this proposed exemption would be effective as of the date the grant notice is published in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Written comments should be received by the Department by April 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: All written comments should be sent to the Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Application No. D-11345. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments to the Department by e-mail to *uzlyan.katie@dol.gov* or by facsimile at
(202)219-0204. The application pertaining to the proposed exemption and the comments will be available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ekaterina A. Uzlyan, Office of Exemptions Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone
(202)693-8552. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given of the pendency before the Department of a proposed exemption that would amend and replace PTE 2000-34. PTE 2000-34 provides an exemption from the prohibited transaction restrictions of section 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and from the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), as amended, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through
(D)of the Code. The proposed exemption has been requested in an application filed on behalf of FML pursuant to 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, 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. Accordingly, this proposed exemption is being issued solely by the Department. I. FML and Its Affiliates As noted in the proposed exemption underlying PTE 2000-34, FML is a mutual life insurance company maintaining its principal place of business at 250 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, Pennsylvania. Prior to certain rehabilitation proceedings, FML was licensed to issue life insurance policies in 47 states and the District of Columbia. Because FML has been organized as a mutual form of life insurance company, it has no stockholders. Instead, the owners of its contracts (i.e., the Mutual Members) are vested with the right to vote and to receive an allocable portion of the divisible surplus. In addition, the Mutual Members have contractual rights under their contracts with FML. FML owns all of the stock of Group, a Pennsylvania-domiciled stock corporation. Group, in turn, owns all of the stock of Fidelity Life Insurance Company (FLIC), a Pennsylvania stock life insurance company. II. Description of FML and the Earlier Plans of Rehabilitation During late 1990, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department began monitoring FML's operations because of concern over FML's real estate holdings, its decline in surplus and unrealized capital losses. In response to an increase in surrenders of FML insurance contracts (the Contracts), and loan requests for the period October 26 to November 5, 1992, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department and FML's Board of Directors petitioned the Court for an Order of Rehabilitation. As a result, FML was placed in rehabilitation on November 6, 1992. Under the Order of Rehabilitation, a moratorium was imposed on cash distributions, Contract surrenders, withdrawals and policy loans, except in certain hardship situations. The moratorium was intended to stop the outflow of cash and to afford the Rehabilitator time to stabilize FML's assets. FML filed the Original Plan of Rehabilitation (the Original Plan), with the Court on June 30, 1994. The Original Plan and the successor amended plans of rehabilitation (i.e., the First Amended Plan of Rehabilitation (the First Amended Plan) and the Second Amended Plan of Rehabilitation (the Second Amended Plan)) are described in detail in PTE 2000-34 at 18361-18362. III. The Third Amended Plan Because the First Amended Plan and the Second Amended Plan were never implemented due to objections raised by a number of parties, FML filed the Third Amended Plan with the Court on June 30, 1998. According to PTE 2000-34, the Third Amended Plan provided that on the reorganization closing date (the Closing Date), FML would transfer its insurance operations (including assets and insurance-contract obligations) to FLIC pursuant to assumption reinsurance and transfer agreements. FLIC would then continue as a wholly owned subsidiary of Group and a successor to FML. Prior to the transfer to and assumption by FLIC, FML would modify the terms of its insurance contracts by endorsement. These contractual obligations (as modified by such endorsements) would remain in force after such transfer, with FLIC being the obligated insurer. A. Sale of Group Stock The Third Amended Plan further provided for FML to sell approximately 51% of the outstanding common stock of Group (Group Common Stock) to an investor (i.e., the Investor) in a private placement in exchange for cash. The Investor would be an independent foreign or domestic entity which satisfied certain securities law and certain minimum rating or capitalization criteria. The Investor would be selected according to bid procedures drawn up by the Commissioner and adopted by the Court, and would be subject to Court approval. Immediately after the Closing Date, the Investor would own slightly more than 50% of the Group Common Stock. Part of the cash received by FML from the sale of Group Common Stock to the Investor would be used by FML to pay the claims of its creditors. The remaining cash would be contributed by FML to the capital of FLIC in order to fund FLIC's future operations. B. Classes of Claims The Third Amended Plan set up classes of claims against FML and specified the priorities of each class of claims, in conformity with the Pennsylvania laws applicable to insurance company rehabilitations. For example, Class 3 covered the claims which holders of Contracts had in their capacities as Contractholders (and not in their capacities as Mutual Members). These claims included claims for death or annuity proceeds or other payments for insured losses under FML insurance policies. Contractholders would be permitted to surrender their Contracts for the full cash surrender value. The Contracts of Contractholders not exercising this surrender option would continue in effect, as modified by endorsement by FML, and then assumed and reinsured by FLIC. Class 10, the last and residual category, covered claims of FML's Mutual Members with respect to their Membership Interests. C. Mutual Members Under the Third Amended Plan, the claims of FML's Mutual Members would generally be satisfied on the Closing Date by distributing Group Common Stock and Group preferred stock (Group Preferred Stock) 1 to these Mutual Members in exchange for the relinquishment of their Membership Interests in FML. Group Common Stock would have voting rights of one vote per share. Group Preferred Stock would have a liquidation preference and redemption value of $25 per share. The holders of Group Preferred Stock would be entitled to receive cumulative annual dividends, payable quarterly, at the rate of 7% per annum of the liquidation preference (i.e., $1.75 per share annually). Group Preferred Stock would generally be non-voting. 1 Group Common Stock and Group Preferred Stock are also collectively referred to as “Plan Stock.” Upon the liquidation of Group, a share of Group Preferred Stock would be entitled to a distribution preference of $25 per share, plus the amount of any accrued but unpaid dividends. Group could elect to redeem shares of Group Preferred Stock at any time after 20 years from the Closing Date (or the issue date, if later) at a redemption price of $25 per share plus the amount of any accrued but unpaid dividends. Group Preferred Stock would be convertible into shares of Group Common Stock at any time at the option of the holder. Of the Plan Stock that would be allocated to Mutual Members for Class 10 claims, 20% would be allocated based on voting rights, and 80% would be based on the Contract's contribution to FML's surplus. Each Mutual Member receiving Plan Stock would receive Group Common Stock and Group Preferred Stock in the ratio of 3 common shares to 2.8 preferred shares. Under the Third Amended Plan, a special distribution rule would apply to Mutual Members who held insurance contracts in connection with
(a)retirement plans or arrangements described in sections 403(a) or 408 of the Code or
(b)non-trusteed retirement plans described in Code section 401(a) (Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts). Mutual Members holding Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts would not receive Plan Stock in exchange for the relinquishment of their Membership Interests. These Mutual Members would instead be entitled to receive Plan Credits having a value equal in value to the Plan Stock they would otherwise have received. This special rule was adopted to take into account the legal impediments which frequently exist on the ability of holders of Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts to hold corporate stock. The Investor would be required to purchase Plan Stock which would otherwise have been allocated to Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts. The proceeds of such sale would be contributed to the capital of FLIC. Mutual Members holding Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts would have the right to disclaim the Plan Credits which they would otherwise receive in exchange for their Membership Interests. Any Mutual Member which is a Plan or other member would have the right to disclaim its interest in the Plan Stock which it would otherwise receive in exchange for its Membership Interest. D. Liquidation of FML; Continuation of Group and FLIC Under the Third Amended Plan, FML would liquidate and dissolve shortly after the Closing Date. Any Group Common Stock and Group Preferred Stock which FML would continue to hold after the Closing Date would be returned to Group for cancellation. FLIC would then continue in existence as a wholly owned subsidiary of Group, and would continue FML's business in a substantially unchanged manner by receiving premiums, paying claims, and generally administering the FML contracts which FLIC had assumed. E. Sale of Plan Stock; Commission-Free Purchase and Sales Program Under the Third Amended Plan, Mutual Members would not be restricted from selling or transferring the Plan Stock received, including converting the Group Preferred Stock to Group Common Stock, although Group, its affiliates and the Investor would be subject to restrictions on purchasing or redeeming such Stock. Additionally, Group would not be precluded from establishing a commission-free purchase or sales program to allow Mutual Members who received a small number of shares of Plan Stock the opportunity to round-up those shares or sell such shares for a temporary period without the payment or sales commission. The Plan Stock would be publicly-traded and listed on the Nasdaq, or the New York or American Stock Exchange. F. Protections for Plan Mutual Members PTE 2000-34 provided certain protections for Mutual Members that are Plans. In this regard: • The Third Amended Plan would be approved by the Court and implemented in accordance with procedural and substantive safeguards that are imposed under Pennsylvania law and would be subject to review and/or supervision by the Commissioner and the Rehabilitator. • The Court would determine whether the Third Amended Plan properly conserved and equitably administered the assets of FML in the interests of investors, the public and others in accordance with the legislatively-stated purpose of protecting the interests of the insured, creditors and the public; and
(2)equitably apportioned any unavoidable loss through improved methods for rehabilitating FML. • Each Mutual Member would have an opportunity to comment on the Third Amended Plan at hearings held by the Court after full written disclosure of the terms of the Third Amended Plan is given to such Mutual Member by FML. • Participation by all Mutual Members in the Third Amended Plan, if approved by the Court, would be mandatory, although Mutual Members could disclaim Plan Stock. • The decision by a Mutual Member, which was a Plan, to receive or disclaim Plan Stock or Plan Credits allocated to such Mutual Member would be made by one or more independent fiduciaries of such plan and not by FML, Group or FLIC. Consequently, neither FML nor any of its affiliates could exercise investment discretion nor render “investment advice” within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) with respect to an independent plan fiduciary's decision to receive or disclaim Plan Stock or Plan Credits. • Twenty percent (20%) of the Plan Stock would be allocated to a Mutual Member based upon voting rights and eighty percent (80%) would be allocated to a Mutual Member on the basis of the contribution of the Mutual Member's insurance or annuity Contract to the surplus of FML. The contribution to FML's surplus is the actuarial calculation of both the historical and expected future profit contribution of the Contracts that have contributed to the surplus (i.e., the net earnings) of FML. The actuarial formulas would be approved by the Court and the Commissioner. • The value of Plan Stock or Plan Credits that would be received by a Mutual Member would reflect the aggregate price paid by the Investor Group for Group Common Stock and for Plan Credits. • All Mutual Members that were Plans would participate in the transactions on the same basis as all other Mutual Members that are not Plans. • No Mutual Member would pay any brokerage commissions or fees in connection with the receipt of Plan Stock or Plan Credits. • The Third Amended Plan would not affect the rights of a Contractholder, which is a Mutual Member. In this regard, FML's obligations to a Contractholder would be discharged and terminated upon their endorsement and assumption by FLIC, thereby making FLIC liable for the obligations under such Contract. IV. The Fourth Amended Plan Subsequent to the granting of PTE 2000-34, FML informed the Department of certain modifications to the Summary of Facts and Representations set forth in PTE 2000-34. Specifically, on November 23, 2005, the Fourth Amended Plan was submitted to the Court. The Fourth Amended Plan supersedes the Third Amended Plan. FML represents that it was not possible to implement the Third Amended Plan because a qualified bidder could not be obtained. Consequently, FML explains that in November 2005, the Fourth Amended Plan was introduced and submitted to the Court. The Fourth Amended Plan calls for the Commissioner to adopt one of the following reorganization alternatives for FML:
(a)Cause FML to sell its insurance operations, assets, and insurance-contract obligations to an Investor who is an asset purchaser (the Asset Purchaser) in exchange for cash (the Asset Acquisition Alternative); or
(b)convert FML from a mutual company to a stock company, and cause FML to sell its stock to an Investor who is a stock purchaser (the Stock Purchaser) in exchange for Investor Stock and/or cash (the Stock Acquisition Alternative). 2 2 For purposes of this proposed exemption, the Asset Acquisition Alternative and the Stock Acquisition Alternative are together referred to as “the Alternatives.” The Rehabilitator will conduct a competitive bidding process in accordance with the bid procedures set forth in the Fourth Amended Plan. The Rehabilitator will have the right to reject any and all bids, and will have no authority to accept a bid without the prior approval of the proposed transaction by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department and by the Court after petition, notice, and hearing. Bidders may bid for either the purchase of all of the stock of FML or the assumption of all of FML's insurance contracts. If an assuming insurer is the successful bidder, selected assets of FML will be transferred to the Asset Purchaser in exchange for its assumption and reinsurance of FML's obligations under all of FML's insurance Contracts. If a purchaser of FML's stock is the successful bidder, FML will be demutualized and converted into a stock corporation, and FML's stock will be sold to such Stock Purchaser. As under the Third Amended Plan, cash obtained by FML will be used to pay the claims of FML's creditors. In addition, FML's Mutual Members will receive cash or a combination of cash and Investor Stock (or, in some cases, Plan Credits). A. The Asset Acquisition Alternative Under the Asset Acquisition Alternative, the Asset Purchaser will assume all of FML's insurance contracts on the Closing Date. These contractual obligations (as modified) will remain in force after such transfer, with the Asset Purchaser being the obligated insurer. In addition, before the Closing Date, each FML Contract in force will be modified by endorsement to remove provisions for voting rights, participation in divisible surplus through dividends, and to provide for continued compliance with various tax provisions. Moreover, each Contract having a cash value will be modified to provide that the Contract will be eligible annually, in lieu of dividends, for certain contractual charges, payments and credits which are not guaranteed by the terms of the contract (the Non-Guaranteed Elements). The Contractholder may elect to apply these Non-Guaranteed Elements in accordance with the same options as were available for the application of dividends before the contract was modified. No Contract modifications will reduce any benefits and guarantees. The cash value, the Non-Guaranteed Element accumulation account, and policy loan accounts of each Contract will be the same after the Closing Date as they were before the Closing Date. Additionally, the initial post-closing Non-Guaranteed Elements will be determined by the Rehabilitator and will be subject to notice, hearing, and Court approval. Further, the Asset Purchaser will pay FML a ceding commission determined by competitive bidding in accordance with the bidding procedures. The bidding procedure will be subject to approval by the Court. Also under the Asset Acquisition Alternative, FML will transfer to the Asset Purchaser the assets of its insurance operations and other assets having a total value equal to the net FML liabilities assumed by the Asset Purchaser (i.e., statutory reserves), less the agreed-upon purchase price as determined through the bidding procedures (i.e., the ceding commission). The transferred assets will be free and clear of all liens and claims arising from pre-closing to claims against FML, but will be subject to the obligations imposed by the assumed Contracts and “the Assumption Reinsurance Agreement.” Additionally, FML will transfer all of the outstanding common stock of FLIC to the Asset Purchaser in the event such assuming insurer submits a bid to purchase the stock of FLIC that is selected by the Rehabilitator and approved by the Court. Further, holders of FML Contracts will have the right to reject the transfer of their Contracts to the Asset Purchaser. Each rejected contract will be cancelled by FML before the Closing Date, and the Contractholder will receive the cash surrender value of the Contract (if any). The Asset Purchaser will have no liability with respect to any rejected contract. The rights of Contractholders in their capacities as Mutual Members of FML will not be affected by any such Contract rejection. As noted below, as soon as practicable after the Closing Date, FML will transfer to Mutual Members (including Mutual Members that are Plans), consideration in the form of cash or Plan Credits, in exchange for such Mutual Member's Membership Interest in FML. B. The Stock Acquisition Alternative Under the Stock Acquisition Alternative, FML will demutualize and convert to a stock corporation effective as of the Closing Date. All of FML's assets will vest in the stock corporation, and the Stock Purchaser will assume all of FML's liabilities which are not released, discharged, or otherwise retained under the Fourth Amended Plan. Moreover, FML's Contracts will be endorsed as under the Asset Acquisition Alternative. Also under the Stock Acquisition Alternative, all of FML's post-conversion (Post-Conversion) issued and outstanding common stock 3 will be transferred to the Stock Purchaser on the Closing Date, in exchange for the consideration determined by competitive bidding, in accordance with the bidding procedures, and subject to approval by the Court. Such consideration may consist of
(a)cash or
(b)a combination of cash and common stock issued by the Stock Purchaser or the parent of the Stock Purchaser (Investor Stock), or a combination of both. Alternatively, the Stock Purchaser may acquire all of FML's stock pursuant to a merger for
(a)cash or
(b)a combination of cash and Investor Stock. 3 The applicant represents that neither Group nor FLIC has any preferred stock outstanding. The Fourth Amended Plan also does not propose to use any preferred stock. Investor Stock forming part of the consideration for FML's stock will be listed on either the Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange. The Investor Stock will also be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and it will not be subject to transfer restrictions (except as may otherwise be required under relevant securities laws). As another option, pursuant to a registration exemption under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, the Stock Purchaser may use as consideration, its shares of unregistered common stock if such Stock Purchaser obtains an SEC “no action” letter or a legal opinion as to the applicability of such SEC exemption. If Investor Stock forms part of the consideration for FML's shares, the Stock Purchaser will be required to establish a “round lot” program under which each FML Mutual Member who receives fewer than 100 shares of Investor Stock under the Fourth Amended Plan may either
(a)purchase additional shares of Investor Stock to increase his holdings to a “round lot” consisting of 100 shares, or
(b)sell all of his or her shares of Investor Stock, without paying brokerage commissions or administrative or similar expenses. At or before Closing, the Rehabilitator and the Stock Purchaser will determine how many shares of Investor Stock are allocable to Mutual Members which are entitled to receive Plan Credits instead of Investor Stock. Instead of transferring these shares as part of the consideration, the Stock Purchaser will pay to FML the market value of such shares as of the Closing Date, and FML will apply this amount as Plan Credits. C. FML Creditors Part of the cash received by FML from either the Asset Purchaser or the Stock Purchaser will be used to pay the claims of FML's creditors in full, together with interest at the rate of 6%. In addition, the Fourth Amended Plan sets up ten classes of claims against FML and specifies the priorities of each class of claims, in conformity with the Pennsylvania laws applicable to insurance company rehabilitations. These classes, priorities, and payment provisions are substantially identical to those included in the Third Amended Plan. In this regard, Mutual Members' claims for their Mutual Membership Interests in FML comprise class 10 claims. D. Mutual Members The Fourth Amended Plan provides that in exchange for the mandatory relinquishment of their Mutual Membership Interests, Mutual Members of FML will be entitled to receive FML's net assets (including cash or a combination of cash and Investor Stock) remaining after the satisfaction of all claims in Classes 1 through 9. Of the FML net assets allocated to Mutual Members for Class 10 claims, 20% will be allocated based on voting rights, and 80% will be based on the Contract's contribution to FML's surplus. As under the Third Amended Plan, the Fourth Amended Plan provides for a special distribution rule. This special distribution rule will apply to Mutual Members, under both Alternatives, who hold Contracts in connection with Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts. These Mutual Members will not receive any cash or Investor Stock in exchange for the relinquishment of their Membership Interests with respect to such Contracts, but will instead receive Plan Credits having a value equal to the cash or combination of cash and Investor Stock they would otherwise have received. Under the Stock Acquisition Alternative, the Stock Purchaser will be required to pay cash to this group of Mutual Members in lieu of Investor Stock, which will be replaced by Plan Credits. Each Mutual Member will have the right to disclaim its interest in the cash or combination of cash and Investor Stock which such Mutual Member would otherwise receive in exchange for its Membership Interest. E. Liquidation or Continuation of FML Effective as of the Closing Date, FML will generally be discharged from any liability with respect to any and all of its liabilities claims and, obligations. Under the Asset Acquisition Alternative, FML will be liquidated and dissolved after all endorsed insurance contracts are assumed by the Asset Purchaser. Under the Stock Purchase Alternative, FML will continue in existence as an operating stock insurance company owned by the Stock Purchaser. F. Protections for Plan Mutual Members Under the Fourth Amended Plan, all Mutual Members that are Plans will be subject to the similar protections as those provided under the Third Amended Plan. In this regard: • The Fourth Amended Plan will be approved by the Court, implemented in accordance with procedural and substantive safeguards that are imposed under Pennsylvania law and be subject to review and/or supervision by the Commissioner (both in her own capacity and in her capacity as Rehabilitator of FML). The Court will determine whether the Fourth Amended Plan
(1)properly conserves and equitably administers the assets of FML, in the interests of investors, the public, and others in accordance with the legislatively-stated purpose of protecting the interests of the insured, creditors, and the public; and
(2)equitably apportions any unavoidable loss through imposed methods for rehabilitating FML. The Court will also retain exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of the Fourth Amended Plan. • The Fourth Amended Plan will provide for either:
(1)the transfer of FML's assets to an independent Asset Purchaser in exchange for cash; or
(2)the conversion of FML from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company and either
(A)the transfer of the stock of Post-Conversion FML to the independent Stock Purchaser or
(B)the merger of Post-Conversion FML into the Stock Purchaser or an affiliate of the Stock Purchaser. • Each Mutual Member will have an opportunity to comment on the Fourth Amended Plan at hearings held by the Court after full written disclosure of the terms of the Plan will be given to such Mutual Member by FML. • Participation by all Mutual Members in the Fourth Amended Plan, if approved by the Court, will be mandatory, although Mutual Members may disclaim the Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits which they would otherwise receive. • The decision by a Mutual Member which is a Plan to receive or disclaim Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits allocated to such Mutual Member will be made by one or more independent fiduciaries of such Plan, and not by FML or any affiliate of FML. Consequently, neither FML nor any of its affiliates will exercise discretion nor render “investment advice” within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) with respect to an independent Plan fiduciary's decision to receive or disclaim Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits. • Twenty percent (20%) of the net assets which will be available for distribution to the Mutual Members would be allocated among the Mutual Members based upon voting rights, and eighty percent (80%) of such net assets will be allocated among the Mutual Members on the basis of the contribution of the Mutual Members' respective insurance or annuity contracts to the surplus of FML. The contribution to FML's surplus will be based on the actuarial calculation of both the historical and expected future profit contribution of the Contracts that have contributed to the surplus (i.e., the net earnings) of FML. The actuarial formulas will be approved by the Court and the Commissioner. • The amount and value of the Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits received by a Mutual Member will reflect the aggregate consideration paid by the Investor. • All Mutual Members that are Plans will participate in the transactions on the same basis as all other Mutual Members that are not Plans, except that Mutual Members which hold Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts will receive Plan Credits in exchange for their membership interests, rather than cash or cash and Investor Stock. • No Mutual Member will pay any brokerage commissions or fees in connection with the receipt of Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits. • Mutual Members will not be restricted from selling or otherwise transferring any Investor Stock which they receive. If Investor Stock comprises part of the consideration paid by the Investor, the Investor will be required to establish a commission-free purchase or sales program which would allow Mutual Members who receive a small number of shares of Investor Stock to “round up” such shares or sell such shares free of sales commissions. • The Fourth Amended Plan will not adversely affect the rights of a Contractholder of the company which is a Mutual Member. In this regard,
(1)if Post-Conversion FML is acquired by the Stock Purchaser, the obligations of FML to a Contractholder are retained by Post-Conversion FML, and
(2)if FML's assets are purchased by the Asset Purchaser, FML's obligations to a Contractholder will be discharged and terminated upon their endorsement, and assumed by the Asset Purchaser, thereby making the Asset Purchaser liable for the obligations under the Contract. G. Status of the Fourth Amended Plan FML represents that the Fourth Amended Plan has been submitted to the Court. Written objections to the Fourth Amended Plan were due in April 2006 and no objections were received. By order dated August 29, 2006, the Court gave its preliminary approval to the Fourth Amended Plan which would allow the Rehabilitator to sell FML through a competitive bid process, with final approval to follow the selection of the winning bidder. The competitive bid process has been initiated and the bidding was closed in February 2007. FML states that it is now very likely that its proposed acquisition under the Fourth Amended Plan will take the form of the Asset Acquisition Alternative. In addition, FML anticipates the successful bidder will be selected before the end of March 2007. V. Request for Individual Exemptive Relief FML requests an individual exemption from the Department that would apply to both Alternatives under the Fourth Amended Plan. Because FML is a service provider to Mutual Members that are Plans, FML is also a party in interest with respect to such plans under section 3(14)(B) of the Act. In addition, the successful bidder under the Stock Acquisition Alternative would become a party in interest with respect to Mutual Members that are Plans under section 3(14)(H) of the Act. This is because the Stock Purchaser would own directly 100% of the common stock of FML. 4 Thus, in tendering cash, or a combination of cash and Investor Stock, or Plan Credits to Mutual Members that are Plans in exchange for their Mutual Membership Interests, FML and/or the Stock Purchaser would be engaging in a prohibited transaction in violation of section 406(a) of the Act. In this respect, the proposed transactions under the Fourth Amended Plan constitute material changes from the Third Amended Plan and necessitate an amendment to PTE 2000-34. 4 Although the Asset Purchaser will have an opportunity to purchase the common stock of FLIC, the Asset Purchaser will not become a direct or indirect owner of FML or a party in interest with respect to Mutual Members of FML that are Plans. Accordingly, the Department is amending and replacing PTE 2000-34 to reflect the implementation of the Alternatives under the Fourth Amended Plan. All references to the Third Amended Plan in the operative language of PTE 2000-34 have been replaced with references to the Fourth Amended Plan. If granted, the amendment would be effective on the date the final amendment is published in the **Federal Register.** The revised operative language and definitions, with emphasis added to show the modifications, appear as follows: SECTION I. *COVERED TRANSACTIONS* If the exemption is granted, 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
(1)the receipt of certain stock (the *Investor Stock* ) issued by the corporation (the *Stock Purchaser* ) which acquires Post-Conversion Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company ( *Post-Conversion FML* ) by stock purchase or by merger,
(2)the receipt of plan credits (the Plan Credits), or
(3)the receipt of cash, by or on behalf of a mutual member (the Mutual Member) of FML which is an employee benefit plan (a Plan), other than an in house Plan sponsored by FML and/or its affiliates, in exchange for such Mutual Member's membership interest (the Membership Interest) in FML, in accordance with the terms of a plan of rehabilitation of FML (the *Fourth Amended Plan* ) approved by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (the Court) and supervised by both the Court and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner (the Commissioner), who is acting as the rehabilitator of FML (the Rehabilitator). This proposed exemption is subject to the following conditions set forth below in Section II. SECTION II. *GENERAL CONDITIONS*
(a)The *Fourth Amended Plan* is approved by the Court, implemented in accordance with procedural and substantive safeguards that are imposed under Pennsylvania law and is subject to review and/or supervision by the Commissioner (both in her own capacity and in her capacity as Rehabilitator of FML). The Court determines whether the *Fourth Amended Plan* —
(1)Properly conserves and equitably administers the assets of FML, in the interests of investors, the public, and others in accordance with the legislatively-stated purpose of protecting the interests of the insured, creditors, and the public; and
(2)Equitably apportions any unavoidable loss through imposed methods for rehabilitating FML.The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of the *Fourth Amended Plan.*
(b)*The Fourth Amended Plan provides for either:*
(1)*The transfer of FML's assets to an independent purchaser (the Asset Purchaser) in exchange for cash; or*
(2)*The conversion of FML from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company and either
(A)the transfer of the stock of Post-Conversion FML to the independent Stock Purchaser or
(B)the merger of Post-Conversion FML into the independent Stock Purchaser or an affiliate of the Stock Purchaser.*
(c)Each Mutual Member has an opportunity to comment on the *Fourth Amended Plan* hearings held by the Court after full written disclosure of the terms of the Plan is given to such Mutual Member by FML.
(d)Participation by all Mutual Members in the *Fourth Amended Plan* , if approved by the Court, is mandatory, although Mutual Members may disclaim the *Investor Stock* , *cash,* and/or Plan Credits which they would otherwise receive.
(e)The decision by a Mutual Member which is a Plan to receive or disclaim *Investor Stock, cash,* and/or Plan Credits allocated to such Mutual Member is made by one or more independent fiduciaries of such Plan, and not *by FML or any affiliate of FML.* Consequently, neither FML nor any of its affiliates will exercise discretion nor render “investment advice” within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) with respect to an independent Plan fiduciary's decision to receive or disclaim *Investor Stock, cash* , and/or Plan Credits.
(f)Twenty percent (20%) of the *net assets which are available for distribution to the Mutual Members is* allocated among the Mutual Members based upon voting rights, and eighty percent (80%) of such net assets is allocated among the Mutual Members on the basis of the contribution of the Mutual Members' respective insurance or annuity contracts (the Contracts) to the surplus of FML. The contribution to FML's surplus is the actuarial calculation of both the historical and expected future profit contribution of the Contracts that have contributed to the surplus (i.e., the net earnings) of FML. The actuarial formulas are approved by the Court and the Commissioner.
(g)*The amount and value of the Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits received by a Mutual Member reflect the aggregate consideration paid by the Stock Purchaser or Asset Purchaser, which is independent of FML.*
(h)All Mutual Members that are Plans participate in the transactions on the same basis as all other Mutual Members that are not Plans, *except that Mutual Members which hold Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts receive Plan Credits in exchange for their membership interests, rather than cash and/or Investor Stock.*
(i)No Mutual Member pays any brokerage commissions or fees in connection with the receipt of *Investor Stock, cash* , and/or Plan Credits.
(j)*Mutual Members are not restricted from selling or otherwise transferring any Investor Stock which they receive. If Investor Stock comprises part of the consideration paid by the Stock Purchaser, the Stock Purchaser is required to establish a commission-free purchase or sales program which will allow Mutual Members who receive a small number of shares of Investor Stock to “round up” such shares or sell such shares free of sales commissions.*
(k)*The Fourth Amended Plan does not adversely affect the rights of a contractholder of the company (the Contractholder) which is a Mutual Member. In this regard,*
(1)*If Post-Conversion FML is acquired by the Stock Purchaser, the obligations of FML to a Contractholder are retained by Post-Conversion FML; and*
(2)*If FML's assets are purchased by the Asset Purchaser, FML's obligations to a Contractholder are discharged and terminated upon their endorsement and assumption by the Asset Purchaser, thereby making the Asset Purchaser liable for the obligations under the Contract.* SECTION III. *DEFINITIONS* For purposes of this proposed exemption:
(a)An “affiliate” of FML, *Post-Conversion FML, the Stock Purchaser* , *or the Asset Purchaser* includes—
(1)Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such entity. (For purposes of this paragraph, the term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.) or
(2)Any officer, director or partner in such person.
(b)*The term “Asset Purchaser” means the person (e.g., individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, etc.) selected by the Rehabilitator and approved by the Court to purchase FML's assets under an assumption reinsurance agreement.*
(c)The term “FML” means the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (In Rehabilitation) and any affiliate of FML, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this Section III, *as they exist before FML is converted from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company.*
(d)* The term “Investor Stock” means the common stock of the Stock Purchaser that will be allocated to Mutual Members if Post- Conversion FML is acquired by the Stock Purchaser in exchange for consideration that includes common stock of the Stock Purchaser. *
(e)The term “Mutual Member” means a Contractholder whose name appears on FML's records as an owner of an FML Contract on the Record Date of the *Fourth Amended Plan.*
(f)*The term “Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts” means FML insurance contracts which are held in connection with retirement plans or arrangements described in section 403(a) or 408 of the Code or non-trusteed retirement plans described in section 401(a) of the Code.*
(g)The term “Plan Credit” means either—
(1)Additional paid up insurance for a traditional life policy; or
(2)Credits to the account values for Contracts that are not traditional (such as a flexible premium policy). *Under FML's Fourth Amended Plan, Plan Credits are to be allocated to Mutual Members who hold Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts, in lieu of Investor Stock and/or cash.*
(h)*The term “Post-Conversion FML” means the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (In Rehabilitation) and any affiliate of FML, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this Section III, as they exist after FML is converted from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company.*
(i)*The term “Stock Purchaser” means the person (e.g., individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, etc.) selected by the Rehabilitator and approved by the Court to purchase the Post-Conversion FML, or to acquire Post-Conversion FML by merger, under a stock purchase agreement or merger agreement.* Notice to Interested Persons Notice of the proposed exemption will be provided by FML to Mutual Members which are Plans within 3 days of the publication of the notice of the proposed exemption in the **Federal Register** . Such notice will be provided to interested persons by first class mail and will include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption, as published in the **Federal Register** , as well as a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which shall inform interested persons of their right to comment on the proposed exemption. Comments with respect to the notice of proposed exemption are due within 33 days after the date of publication of this pendency notice in the **Federal Register** . 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 section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and 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 require, among other things, a fiduciary to discharge his or her 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 requirements of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2)The proposed exemption, if granted, will not extend to transactions prohibited under section 406(b) of the Act and section 4975(c)(1)(E)-(F) of the Code;
(3)Before an exemption can be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interest of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(4)This proposed exemption, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions. 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
(5)This proposed exemption, if granted, is subject to the express condition that the facts and representations set forth in the notice of proposed exemption relating to PTE 2000-34 and this notice, accurately describe, where relevant, the material terms of the transactions to be consummated pursuant to this exemption. Written Comments All interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the pending exemption to the address above, within the time frame set forth above, after the publication of this proposed exemption in the **Federal Register** . All comments will be made a part of the record. Comments received will be available for public inspection with the referenced applications at the address set forth above. Based on the facts and representations set forth in the application, the Department is considering granting the requested exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, August 10, 1990), the Department proposes to amend and replace PTE 2000-34 as follows: SECTION I. *COVERED TRANSACTIONS* If the exemption is granted, 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
(1)the receipt of certain stock (the Investor Stock) issued by the corporation (the Stock Purchaser) which acquires Post-Conversion Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (Post-Conversion FML) by stock purchase or by merger,
(2)the receipt of plan credits (the Plan Credits), or
(3)the receipt of cash, by or on behalf of a mutual member (the Mutual Member) of FML which is an employee benefit plan (a Plan), in exchange for such Mutual Member's membership interest (the Membership Interest) in FML, in accordance with the terms of a plan of rehabilitation of FML (the Fourth Amended Plan) approved by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (the Court) and supervised by both the Court and the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner (the Commissioner), who is acting as the rehabilitator of FML (the Rehabilitator). This proposed exemption is subject to the following conditions set forth below in Section II. SECTION II. *GENERAL CONDITIONS*
(a)The Fourth Amended Plan is approved by the Court, implemented in accordance with procedural and substantive safeguards that are imposed under Pennsylvania law and is subject to review and/or supervision by the Commissioner (both in her own capacity and in her capacity as Rehabilitator of FML). The Court determines whether the Fourth Plan—
(1)Properly conserves and equitably administers the assets of FML, in the interests of investors, the public, and others in accordance with the legislatively-stated purpose of protecting the interests of the insured, creditors, and the public; and
(2)Equitably apportions any unavoidable loss through imposed methods for rehabilitating FML. (The Court will retain exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization.)
(b)The Fourth Amended Plan provides for either:
(1)The transfer of FML's assets to an independent purchaser (the Asset Purchaser) in exchange for cash; or
(2)The conversion of FML from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company and either
(A)the transfer of the stock of Post-Conversion FML to the independent Stock Purchaser or
(B)the merger of Post-Conversion FML into the independent Stock Purchaser or an affiliate of the Stock Purchaser.
(c)Each Mutual Member has an opportunity to comment on the Fourth Amended Plan at hearings held by the Court after full written disclosure of the terms of the Plan is given to such Mutual Member by FML.
(d)Participation by all Mutual Members in the Fourth Amended Plan, if approved by the Court, is mandatory, although Mutual Members may disclaim the Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits which they would otherwise receive.
(e)The decision by a Mutual Member which is a Plan to receive or disclaim Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits allocated to such Mutual Member is made by one or more independent fiduciaries of such Plan, and not by FML or any affiliate of FML. Consequently, neither FML nor any of its affiliates will exercise discretion nor render “investment advice” within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c) with respect to an independent Plan fiduciary's decision to receive or disclaim Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits.
(f)Twenty percent (20%) of the net assets which are available for distribution to the Mutual Members is allocated among the Mutual Members based upon voting rights, and eighty percent (80%) of such net assets is allocated among the Mutual Members on the basis of the contribution of the Mutual Members' respective insurance or annuity contracts (the Contracts) to the surplus of FML. The contribution to FML's surplus is the actuarial calculation of both the historical and expected future profit contribution of the Contracts that have contributed to the surplus (i.e., the net earnings) of FML. The actuarial formulas are approved by the Court and the Commissioner.
(g)The amount and value of the Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits received by a Mutual Member reflect the aggregate consideration paid by the Stock Purchaser or Asset Purchaser, which is independent of FML.
(h)All Mutual Members that are Plans participate in the transactions on the same basis as all other Mutual Members that are not Plans, except that Mutual Members which hold Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts receive Plan Credits in exchange for their membership interests, rather than cash and/or Investor Stock.
(i)No Mutual Member pays any brokerage commissions or fees in connection with the receipt of Investor Stock, cash, and/or Plan Credits.
(j)Mutual Members are not restricted from selling or otherwise transferring any Investor Stock which they receive. If Investor Stock comprises part of the consideration paid by the Stock Purchaser, the Stock Purchaser is required to establish a commission-free purchase or sales program which will allow Mutual Members who receive a small number of shares of Investor Stock to “round up” such shares or sell such shares free of sales commissions.
(k)The Fourth Amended Plan does not adversely affect the rights of a contractholder of the company (the Contractholder) which is a Mutual Member. In this regard,
(1)If Post-Conversion FML is acquired by the Stock Purchaser, the obligations of FML to a Contractholder are retained by Post-Conversion FML; and
(2)If FML's assets are purchased by the Asset Purchaser, FML's obligations to a Contractholder are discharged and terminated upon their endorsement and assumption by the Asset Purchaser, thereby making the Asset Purchaser liable for the obligations under the Contract. SECTION III. *DEFINITIONS* For purposes of this proposed exemption:
(a)An “affiliate” of FML, Post-Conversion FML, the Stock Purchaser, or the Asset Purchaser includes—
(1)Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such entity. (For purposes of this paragraph, the term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.); or
(2)Any officer, director or partner in such person.
(b)The term “Asset Purchaser” means the person (e.g., individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, etc.) selected by the Rehabilitator and approved by the Court to purchase FML's assets under an assumption reinsurance agreement.
(c)The term “FML” means the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (In Rehabilitation) and any affiliate of FML, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this Section III, as they exist before FML is converted from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company.
(d)The term “Investor Stock” means the common stock of the Stock Purchaser that will be allocated to Mutual Members if Post-Conversion FML is acquired by the Stock Purchaser in exchange for consideration that includes common stock of the Stock Purchaser.
(e)The term “Mutual Member” means a Contractholder whose name appears on FML's records as an owner of an FML Contract on the Record Date of the Fourth Amended Plan.
(f)The term “Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts” means FML insurance contracts which are held in connection with retirement plans or arrangements described in section 403(a) or 408 of the Internal Revenue Code or non-trusteed retirement plans described in Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
(g)The term “Plan” means an employee benefit plan.
(h)The term “Plan Credit” means either
(1)additional paid up insurance for a traditional life policy or
(2)credits to the account values for Contracts that are not traditional (such as a flexible premium policy). Under FML's Fourth Amended Plan, Plan Credits are to be allocated to Mutual Members who hold Non-Trusteed Tax-Qualified Retirement Funding Contracts, in lieu of Investor Stock and/or cash.
(i)The term “Post-Conversion FML” means the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company (In Rehabilitation) and any affiliate of FML, as defined in paragraph
(a)of this Section III, as they exist after FML is converted from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life insurance company.
(j)The term “Stock Purchaser” means the person (e.g., individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, etc.) selected by the Rehabilitator and approved by the Court to purchase the stock of Post-Conversion FML, or to acquire Post-Conversion FML by merger, under a stock purchase agreement or merger agreement. This exemption is available to a Mutual Member of FML that is a Plan if the terms and conditions of the exemption are satisfied with respect to such Plan. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant PTE 2000-34, refer to the proposed exemption and the grant notice which are cited above. Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of March, 2007. Ivan L. Strasfeld, Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-5208 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,753] Cerf Brothers Bag Co., Inc., Earth City, MO; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated January 13, 2007, a state representative requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on February 16, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8795). The negative determination was based on the Department's findings that that the petitioning workers of this firm or subdivision do not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The Department reviewed the request for reconsideration and has determined that the petitioner has provided additional information. Therefore, the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th of March, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-5239 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of March 5 through March 9, 2007. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry ( *i.e.* , conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-61,037; Flint Group North America Corporation, Flint Group Pigments Division, Holland, MI: February 27, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,899; CCL Label St. Louis, Case Report Forms Dept., Aerotek, St. Charles, MO: January 30, 2006.* *TA-W-60,928; Florence Design Group, Florence, AL: February 6, 2006.* *TA-W-60,853; Artistree, Graham and Associates, Kernersville, NC: January 29, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,772; Harve Bernard Ltd, Bernard and Morton Co., Inc., Clifton, NJ: January 12, 2006.* *TA-W-60,898; Thyssen Krupp Crankshafts Company, LLC, Danville Machining Div. Manpower, Imac, Kelly, Danville, IL: January 8, 2006.* *TA-W-60,921; Weyerhaeuser Company, I Level Veneer Technology Division, Springfield, OR: February 1, 2006.* *TA-W-60,923; Novtex Corporation, Adams, MA: February 7, 2006.* *TA-W-60,955; Red Lion Manufacturing, Inc., JFC Staffing & Sesame/Personnel, Hallam, PA: February 2, 2006.* *TA-W-60,980; WestPoint Home, Manpower Staffing, Bed Products, Abbeville, AL: February 14, 2006.* *TA-W-60,983; United States Ceramic Tile Company, Lauffen International, Inc., East Sparta, OH: November 6, 2006.* *TA-W-60,682; Meridian Automotive Systems, Plant 5, Kentwood, MI: December 21, 2005.* *TA-W-60,807; NothelferGilman, Inc., Gilman Engineering and Manufacturing, Janesville, WI: January 22, 2007.* *TA-W-60,851; Mastercraft Fabrics, LLC, Joan Fabrics Corporation, Cramerton, NC: January 29, 2007.* *TA-W-60,856; Amery Technical Products, Inc., Lint Roller Division, Amery, WI: January 25, 2006.* *TA-W-60,914; Martnrea Industries, Reed City Tool & Die Division, Reed City, MI: March 2, 2007.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,873; CML Innovative Technologies, Inc., Hackensack, NJ: January 19, 2006.* *TA-W-60,992; Kimberly-Clark/Ballard Medical Products, Aerotek, SOS, Strategic Staffing, Draper, UT: March 11, 2007.* *TA-W-60,952; Scovill Fasteners, Inc., Etcon Staffing, Clarkesville, GA: February 2, 2006.* *TA-W-61,007; Venture Lighting International, Solon Division, Solon, OH: January 24, 2006.* *TA-W-61,040; Imperial World Inc., dba World Pacific, Westmont, IL: February 7, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,816; Cooper Standard Automotive, Body and Chassis Div., Doubletree Personnel, Mega, Goldsboro, NC: January 23, 2006.* *TA-W-60,872; Silberline Manufacturing Co., Inc., Corporation Division, Tamaqua, PA: January 22, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *TA-W-60,899; CCL Label St. Louis, Case Report Forms Dept., Aerotek, St. Charles, MO.* *TA-W-60,928; Florence Design Group, Florence, AL.* The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-W-60,853; Artistree, Graham and Associates, Kernersville, NC.* *TA-W-61,037; Flint Group North America Corporation, Flint Group Pigments Division, Holland, MI.* The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-60,911; Truth Hardware, West Hazleton, PA.* *TA-W-60,957; Douglas Quikut, Stamping Department, Walnut Ridge, AR.* *TA-W-60,987; Stant Manufacturing Company, Manufacturing Division, Connersville, IN.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *None.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-60,548; Alan White Company, Sulligent, AL.* *TA-W-60,757; Alan White Company, Shannon, MS.* *TA-W-60,934; Golden Manufacturing Co., Marietta, MS.* *TA-W-60,954; Congoleum Corporation, A Subsidiary of American Biltrite, Trainer, PA.* *TA-W-60,738; Georgia Pacific LLC, A Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Crossett Paper Operations, Crossett, AR.* *TA-W-60,811; George Weston Bakeries, Inc., Bayshore, NY.* *TA-W-60,925; Westinghouse Electric, New Britain Operations Division, New Britain, CT.* The investigation revealed that the predominate cause of worker separations is unrelated to criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a foreign country under a free trade agreement or a beneficiary country under a preferential trade agreement, or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports). *None.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-60,104; International Business Machines (IBM), Division 35, San Jose, CA.* *TA-W-60,969; RM International, Portland, OR.* The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of March 5 through March 9, 2007. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: March 14, 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-5236 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,688] Lego Systems, Inc. Including Former On-Site Leased Workers of Adecco USA, Inc. Currently Employed With Staff Management, Enfield, CT; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on January 16, 2007, applicable to workers of LEGO Systems, Inc., including on-site leased workers of Staff Management, Enfield, Connecticut. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5748). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the assembly of LEGO toy model kits. New information shows that in February 2006, the leased workers of Adecco USA, Inc., employed on-site at the Enfield, Connecticut location of LEGO Systems, Inc., became employees of Staff Management due to a change in contracting firms. Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at LEGO Systems, Inc., Enfield, Connecticut who were adversely affected by a shift in production to Mexico. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,688 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of LEGO Systems, Inc., including former on-site leased workers of Adecco USA, Inc., currently employed with Staff Management, Enfield, Connecticut, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 2, 2006, through January 16, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of March 2007. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-5238 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,078] Weyerhaeuser Company; Lebanon Lumber Division; Lebanon, OR; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On December 15, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Weyerhaeuser Company, Lebanon Lumber Division, Lebanon, Oregon (the subject firm). The Department's Notice of affirmative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on December 21, 2006 (71 FR 76700). The initial denial of the workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)was based on the Department's findings that the workers produce green softwood stud lumber; the subject firm neither imported green softwood stud lumber nor shifted production of green softwood stud lumber overseas during the relevant period; and the subject firm's major declining customers had negligible imports of green softwood stud lumber during the surveyed periods. The Department's Notice of determination was issued on October 19, 2006 and published in the **Federal Register** on November 6, 2006 (71 FR 65004). The request for reconsideration, filed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters Industrial Council, Local 2791 (Union), alleges that Weyerhaeuser Company purchased a softwood lumber production facility in Canada, inferring that the subject firm has increased imports of lumber or articles like or directly competitive with lumber produced at the subject facility. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department discussed the allegations with the Union, sought clarification from the subject firm regarding Weyerhaeuser Company's Canadian lumber production facilities, and conducted a customer survey regarding imports of stud lumber and articles like or directly competitive with stud lumber produced at the subject firm during the relevant period. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department determined that kiln-dried lumber and engineered wood products are like or directly competitive with green stud lumber. As such, the Department conducted an expanded customer survey to determine whether the subject firm's major declining customers had increased import purchases of green stud lumber and articles like or directly competitive with green stud lumber produced at the subject firm. The survey revealed no increased imports of green stud lumber or articles like or directly competitive with green stud lumber during the surveyed periods. The reconsideration investigation also revealed that, contrary to the Union's allegation, Weyerhaeuser Company has not purchased any lumber production facilities in Canada during the relevant period. Further, an August 23, 2006 Weyerhaeuser Company news release (attached to the petition) states that the subject firm was replaced by a new, “world-class” sawmill in the Lebanon, Oregon area. In the request for reconsideration, the Union requested that the Department review the articles submitted with the petition and the findings by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) regarding Investigation Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928. “Increased imports means that imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared to a representative base period. The representative base period shall be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the date which is twelve months prior to the date of the petition.” 29 CFR Section 90.2 Because the petition is dated September 13, 2006, the Department determines that the relevant period is September 2005 through August 2006. While “News Release,” Weyerhaeuser, August 23, 2006, states that Weyerhaeuser Company “operates lumber mills in eight states and four provinces in Canada,” it does not infer any shift of production to Canada or increased imports from Canada. Further, the article explains that the new sawmill to which production is shifting is also in the Lebanon, Oregon area. While Weyerhaeuser Company's “Forward Looking Statement” (July 25, 2006) acknowledges that Weyerhaeuser Company has concerns about its third quarter 2006 performance, it does not infer any shift of production to Canada or increased imports from Canada. Although “News Release,” Weyerhaeuser, July 25, 2006, states that second quarter 2006 earnings are lower than second quarter 2005 earnings, the article also states that costs Weyerhaeuser Company incurred on Canadian softwood lumber sold into the U.S. in the second quarter of 2006 were lower than first quarter 2006. “Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports: WTO Again Rejects Canadian Attack on Softwood Lumber Duties,” Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, April 13, 2006, states that the World Trade Organization Appellate Body's decision to support an ITC determination (issued on November 24, 2004) that U.S. lumber producers are threatened with material injury by imports of dumped and subsidized softwood lumber from Canada is correct. However, because the events relevant to the ITC's determination occurred outside the relevant period, it cannot be a basis for the subject workers' eligibility to apply for TAA. Similarly, because data in the International Trade Report, December 2004, and the USITC determination (issued July 30, 2004) regarding Investigation Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928, fall outside the relevant time period, they cannot be a basis for the subject workers' eligibility to apply for TAA. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the subject workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. Conclusion After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Weyerhaeuser Company, Lebanon Lumber Division, Lebanon, Oregon. Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of March 2007 Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-5237 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: 29 CFR Part 825, The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (WH-380 and WH-381). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202)693-0418, fax
(202)693-1451, e-mail *bell.hazel@dol.gov* . Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601, *et seq.* , requires private sector employers of 50 or more employees and public agencies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave during any 12-month period to “eligible” employees for certain family and medical reasons. Leave must be granted to “eligible” employees because of the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child, because of the placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care, because the employee is needed to care for a family member (child, spouse, or parent) with a serious health condition, or because the employee's own serious health condition makes the employee unable to perform any of the essential functions of his or her job. This information collection contains recordkeeping and notification requirements associated with the Act and regulations. Implementing regulations are found at 29 CFR Part 825. Two optional forms are included in this information collection request. The WH-380, Certification of Health Care Provider, may be used to certify a serious health condition under FMLA. The WH-381, Employer Response to Employee Request for Family or Medical Leave, may be used by an employer to respond to a leave request under FMLA. Both forms are third-party notifications and they are not submitted to the Department of Labor. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2007. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks approval for the extension of this information collection in order to ensure that both employers and employees are aware of and can exercise their rights and meet their respective obligations under FMLA, and in order for the Department of Labor to carry out its statutory obligation under FMLA to investigate and ensure employer compliance has been met. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* 29 CFR, Part 825, The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. *OMB Number:* 1215-0181. *Agency Number:* WH-380, WH-381. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Farms, State, Local or Tribal Government. *Total Respondents:* 6,656,500. *Total Responses:* 15,058,850. *Time per Response:* 1 to 20 minutes. *Frequency:* On Occasion (Recordkeeping, Third-Party Disclosure). *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 1,370,288. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: March 15, 2007. Ruben Wiley, Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5234 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-27-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Waiver of Child Labor Provisions for Agricultural Employment of 10 and 11 Year Old Minors in Hand Harvesting of Short Season Crops—29 CFR Part 575. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202)693-0418, fax
(202)693-1451, e-mail *bell.hazel@dol.gov* . Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA)section 13(c)(4), 29 U.S.C. 213(c)(4), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to grant a waiver of child labor provisions of the FLSA for the agricultural employment of 10 and 11 year old minors in the hand harvesting of short season crops if specific requirements and conditions are met. The Act also requires all employers covered by the FLSA to make, keep and preserve records of employees and of wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2007. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks approval for the extension of this information collection in order to determine whether the statutory requirements and conditions for granting a requested exemption have been met. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Waiver of Child Labor Provisions for Agricultural Employment of 10 and 11 Year Old Minors in Hand Harvesting of Short Season Crops—29 CFR Part 575. *OMB Number:* 1215-0120. *Affected Public:* Farms; Individual or Households. *Total Respondents:* 1. *Total Responses:* 1. *Average Time per Response:* 4 hours. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 4. *Frequency:* Annually. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: March 15, 2007. Ruben Wiley, Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5235 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-27-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-213] Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; Haddam Neck Plant; Exemption 1.0 Background Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO, the licensee) is holder of shutdown facility license No. DPR-61, which authorizes activities at the Haddam Neck Plant. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility consists of a former reactor site undergoing decommissioning, and an Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in East Hampton, Connecticut. 2.0 Request/Action Appendix E to Title 10 of The Code of Federal Regulations specifies Emergency Planning and Preparedness requirements for Part 50 licensees. Section IV, “Content of Emergency Plans,” Subpart F specifies that each licensee shall conduct an exercise of its onsite and offsite emergency plans
(EPs)every two years. By letter dated August 28, 1998, NRC exempted the licensee from offsite emergency planning activities, including the offsite exercise requirement. As part of the exemption, the licensee committed to an increased frequency for onsite EP exercises, to once a year. By letter of September 18, 2006, the licensee submitted a revision to the Haddam Neck Plant
(HNP)EP for NRC review and approval. Section 1.0 of the EP states that, “This revision of the Emergency Plan is intended for end state conditions where power plant dismantlement and decommissioning have been completed and the ISFSI is the only thing remaining on the site * * * ” NRC will verify proper timing of the execution of the EP in the inspection process. The EP revision reduces the frequency of onsite exercises from every year to every other year. The Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs' review of this proposed change to the HNP EP is described below. On December 5, 1996, the HNP reactor was permanently shut down. All the spent fuel was transferred to the ISFSI by March 2005. The NRC issued an exemption on August 28, 1998, that granted CYAPCO exemptions from portions of the 10 CFR 50.54(q) EP requirements. The staff reviewed the revised EP for coping with radiological emergencies at the HNP site including the licensee's 10 CFR 50.54(q) evaluation to verify that the reduction in exercise frequency does not decrease the effectiveness of the plan and that the plan, as changed, continues to meet the standards contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 applicable to the approved Part 50 EP for the long-term defueled condition. The licensee identified that the exercise frequency reduction was a reduction in commitment. The NRC staff evaluation below, concludes the proposed change meets the requirements of § 50.47(b) and Appendix E to Part 50. Section 8.2.3 of the HNP EP requires that an exercise will be conducted once each calendar year to demonstrate the capability to meet the EP. CYAPCO is proposing to revise the frequency of an exercise of its onsite EP from once per year to every other year. CYAPCO has determined that the proposed change in the frequency of an exercise constitutes a reduction in commitment and thus represents a decrease in effectiveness of the EP. However, the EP continues to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to Part 50. The plant is permanently shutdown and defueled. All spent fuel and greater than Class C waste have been placed in dry storage at the ISFSI, and there is no longer liquid radioactive waste or significant quantities of dry activated waste stored on site. Additionally, in order to ensure adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained during the time between exercises, CYAPCO is adding a requirement to Section 8.2 of the HNP EP as follows: During the interval between biennial exercises, CYAPCO will conduct drills, including at least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of the onsite response capabilities (management, accident assessment, protective and corrective actions). The proposed change is consistent with the 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, (IV)(F)(2)(b) requirement to conduct an onsite EP exercise every two years. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when:
(1)The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and
(2)when special circumstances are present. The licensee's request for approval was submitted in conjunction with a proposed revision to the HNP onsite EP, and is effective when the site has only an ISFSI remaining onsite. NRC staff considers that requiring the licensee to meet a self-imposed standard above regulatory requirements is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, special circumstances do exist for the granting of this exemption, as specified in 10 CFR 50.12. Authorized by Law This exemption would exempt CYAPCO from requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, as previously exempted on August 28, 1998, thus allowing onsite EP exercises to be conducted every two years vice annually. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC staff has determined that granting of this exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law. No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety This exemption only affects the periodicity of onsite EP exercises. No new accident precursors are created by this exemption; accordingly, the probability of postulated accidents are not increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety as a result of the exemption. Consistent With Common Defense and Security This exemption, as set forth above, affects the periodicity of onsite EP exercises. The revised periodicity is consistent with the Appendix E regulatory requirements for onsite EP exercises, and with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14), which states, in part, “Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities * * *. ” The licensee will continue to conduct other Emergency Planning drills during the time intervals between exercises in order to maintain its emergency response capabilities. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption. Special Circumstances Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances “would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.” The underlying purpose of Appendix E is to ensure that licensees' EPs are sufficient for use in attaining an acceptable state of emergency preparedness. The NRC staff has determined that the intent of this rule is not compromised by the licensee's proposed action because onsite exercises will be required every two years, which is consistent with Appendix E requirements. Therefore, since the underlying purpose of Appendix E is achieved, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12 (a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from Appendix E exist. Environmental Evaluation This exemption constitutes a regulatory action approving a change in operations that would not cause any increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, increase any individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure, has no construction impact, and has no significant increase in potential for, or consequences from, a radiological accident. Therefore, the categorical exclusion defined in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) is applicable, and no further environmental evaluation is needed. 4. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Licensee request of September 18, 2006, ML062690475. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The NRC exemption dated August 28, 1998, is available in the PDR. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. 5. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants CYAPCO an exemption to the licensee's previous exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q), as granted by NRC on August 28, 1998 (ML980903182); which requires EPs to meet 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to Part 50. Specifically, this exemption allows onsite EP exercises to be conducted once every two years, in lieu of the annual requirement currently in place. This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March, 2007. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Larry W. Camper, Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-5248 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 052-00007] Notice of Issuance of Early Site Permit for Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Site Located 6 Miles East of the City of Clinton, IL AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of issuance of early site permit. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joelle L. Starefos, Senior Project Manager, AP1000 Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone:
(301)415-8488; Fax number:
(301)415-2390; e-mail: *jls1@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is providing notice of the issuance of Early Site Permit
(ESP)ESP-001 to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC or the permit holder), for approval of a site located 6 miles east of the city of Clinton, Illinois, for one or more nuclear power facilities separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit or combined license for such a facility. The NRC has found that the application for an ESP filed by EGC complies with the applicable requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the applicable rules and regulations of the Commission, and all required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made. Based on consideration of the site criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 100, a reactor, or reactors, having design characteristics that fall within the site characteristics and controlling parameters of the EGC ESP Site can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. There is reasonable assurance that the permit holder will comply with the regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, and the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. Issuance of an ESP to the permit holder will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public. There is no significant impediment to the development of emergency plans, as referenced in 10 CFR 52.17(b)(1) and 10 CFR 52.18, “Standards for Review of Applications.” The descriptions of contacts and arrangements made with Federal, State, and local governmental agencies with emergency planning responsibilities, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.17(b)(3), are acceptable. Major features A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, O, and P of the emergency plan are acceptable to the extent specified in NUREG-1844, “Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(EGC)ESP Site.” The issuance of this ESP, subject to the Environmental Protection Plan and the conditions for the protection of the environment set forth herein, is in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and with applicable sections of 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” as referenced by Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52, “Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” and all applicable requirements therein have been satisfied. The site redress plan incorporated into this permit demonstrates that there is reasonable assurance that redress carried out under the plan, if required, will achieve an environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable site suitable for whatever non-nuclear use may conform with local zoning laws, and those activities performed described in the site redress plan will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed. The permit holder's request for the proposed permit was previously noticed in the **Federal Register** on December 12, 2003, (68 FR 69426) with a notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene. This early site permit complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I. Accordingly, Early Site Permit No. ESP-001 was issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC on March 15, 2007, and is effective immediately. II. Further Information The NRC has prepared a Safety Evaluation Report
(SER)and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), that document the information that was reviewed and NRC's conclusions. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” details with respect to this action, including the SER, EIS, and accompanying documentation included in the early site permit package, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, members of the public can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: ML070670140 Issuance of Early Site Permit for Exelon Generation Company, LLC (ESP-001). ML061210203 NUREG-1844—“Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(EGC)ESP Site”. ML061930264 NUREG-1815 Vol 1—“Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Exelon ESP Site” Main Report. ML061930275 NUREG-1815 Vol 2—“Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit
(ESP)at the Exelon ESP Site” Appendices A-K. ML061100260 Exelon Early Site Permit Application—Revision 4. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of March, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephanie M. Coffin, Chief, AP1000 Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E7-5247 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Florida Power Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing; Correction AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance; Correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11381), which informs the public that the NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-72. This action is necessary to correct the name of the licensee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3475, e-mail: *bac2@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 11381, appearing near the bottom of the second column, the heading is corrected to read as above, and in the last line of the second column and the first line of the third column, “Florida Power and Light” is corrected to read “Florida Power Corporation.” Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2007. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-5249 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [HLWRS-ISG-02] Preclosure Safety Analysis—Level of Information and Reliability Estimation; Availability of Final Interim Staff Guidance Document AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is announcing the availability of the final interim staff guidance
(ISG)document HLWRS-ISG-02, “Preclosure Safety Analysis—Level of Information and Reliability Estimation,” and NRC responses to the public comments received on that document. The ISG clarifies or refines the guidance provided in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan
(YMRP)(NUREG-1804, Revision 2, July 2003). The YMRP provides guidance to NRC staff to evaluate a potential license application for a high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository constructed or operated at Yucca Mountain (YM), Nevada. ADDRESSES: The document HLWRS-ISG-02 is available electronically at NRC's Electronic Reading Room, at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html* . From this site, a member of the public can access NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for ISG-02 is ML070260204. If an individual does not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or
(301)415-4737, or (by e-mail) at *pdr@nrc.gov.* This document may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at NRC's PDR, Mail Stop: O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents, for a fee. *NRC Responses to Public Comments on HLWRS-ISG-02:* In preparing final HLWRS-ISG-02, “Preclosure Safety Analysis—Level of Information and Reliability Estimation,” ADAMS ML070260204, the NRC staff reviewed and considered 23 comments, including two editorial comments, received from two organizations during the public comment period. Two of the comments were identical; three comments were related to the ISG process; one comment endorsed NRC's recognition of the use of the published reliability values for structures, systems, and components (SSCs); and the remaining comments included recommendations on specific clarifying changes to the ISG. Three comments on the ISG process were consistent with the comments made earlier on HLWRS-ISG-01, and were addressed in responses to public comment on HLWRS-ISG-01 [see 71 FR 57582, Comments 13(a) and (b)]. The following discussion indicates how the comments were addressed, and the changes, if any, made to ISG-02 as a result of the comments. Line numbers in the following comments refer to the draft HLWRS-ISG-02, ADAMS ML062360241, which was made available for public comment on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57584). *Comment 1.* One commenter was concerned that the changes in the YMRP, recommended in ISG lines 59-66, 222-224, and 271-273, appear to suggest that information regarding “design bases and design criteria” for non-important to safety (non-ITS) SSCs be similar to those for ITS SSCs. Since non-ITS SSCs have been determined not to be necessary to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 63 preclosure performance objectives, the commenter states that subsection 63.21(c)(3) does not appear to support inclusion of information related to design bases and design criteria for non-ITS SSCs. The commenter recommends specific changes to ISG lines 62, 222, 239, 254, 258, 263, 266, and 272, to clarify its position. *Response.* NRC agrees that information required for non-ITS SSCs would be less than for ITS SSCs. Subsection 63.21(c)(3) requires a description and discussion of the design of the YM geologic repository operations area, that is sufficient to permit an evaluation of the preclosure safety analysis (PCSA). DOE will have to provide sufficient information to discuss how the proposed design would function. This also includes the general arrangements of SSCs, capacities of SSCs, and levels at which the SSCs are operated. Staff agrees with the commenter that 10 CRF Part 63 requires the design bases and design criteria for ITS SSCs, and not for non-ITS SSCs. ISG lines 62, 222, 254, and 272 have been revised to state that design bases and design criteria refer to SSCs that have been designated as ITS. ISG lines 239, 258, 263, and 266 have not been revised, because these lines refer to estimating the reliability of SSCs sufficient for performing the PCSA and identifying ITS SSCs, as per 63.112. *Comment 2.* The commenter stated that, in lines 57-259, it would be more appropriate to use “accept,” instead of “recognize,” because it is unclear. The same commenter also noted that lines 276-284 do not include an acceptance criterion element related to “acceptability of codes and standards,” as proposed in lines 258-259, and supplemented in lines 121-124. *Response.* NRC disagrees that the word “recognize” is unclear in the context of the sentence in lines 257-259. Staff believes that the use of the word “accept” would be inappropriate here, because the codes and standards do not provide explicit reliability values requiring acceptance. Staff also disagrees with the commenter's recommendation on the addition of a new acceptance criterion item (7), regarding the use of codes and standards to obtain a probability of unacceptable performance. Staff believes that, as stated in ISG lines 121-124, the application of the codes and standards, to the design and operation of an ITS SSC, is an accepted engineering practice, and is addressed as new item (2), of “Acceptance Criterion 2,” in ISG lines 276-277. No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment. *Comment 3.* The commenter states that the phrases “risk-significant” or “risk-significance” have a multiplicity of meanings. For example, in nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment applications, the terms refer to a metric of risk that is a function of both probability (or frequency) of occurrence, and consequences. However, in the context of Part 63, event sequence categorization is performed on the basis of probability, only. The consequences of interest (public and worker doses) are deterministic in nature. The commenter recommended that the terms “risk-significant” or “risk-significance” be avoided or defined specifically in the context of this ISG. *Response.* NRC agrees that use of the terms “risk-significant” or “risk-significance” in the ISG requires clarification where reference is to the consequences only and not to the “risk,” which includes both the probability and the consequences. Changes to lines 41 and 162 were made to either clarify or remove redundancy of the “risk” term. Specific changes to the ISG, suggested by the commenter on lines 210, 268, 289, 382, and 574, are not made, because these lines refer to the “risk” consistent with the traditional definition (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *White Paper on Risk-informed and Performance-based Regulation,* SECY-98-144, June 22, 1998, as revised by the Staff Requirements Memorandum, March 1, 1998). The ISG has been revised as follows: Line 41: Change “risk-significant” to “significant.” Line 162: Delete “risk-significance or * * *” *Comment 4.* The commenter suggested that the lines 86 and 240 of the ISG be revised to state that “Explicit quantitative reliability estimates of software failure modes during event sequences are beyond the state-of-the-art and are not expected for the PCSA. It is acceptable to use reliability estimates of digital control units, which would implicitly include hardware and software effects.” *Response.* NRC disagrees that revisions to lines 86 and 240 are needed. For SSCs where the reliability estimates include hardware and software effects, it is acceptable to use the reliability estimates, without explicit consideration of software failures. However, for SSCs where such data are not available, an estimate for reliability needs to include consideration of hardware and software failures. NRC believes that ISG lines 86 and 240 do not need to be revised because these statements allow the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)the flexibility to consider hardware and software failures with appropriate technical bases. No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment. *Comment 5.* The commenter states that the sentence starting at line 89 be revised by replacing “event” with “event sequences.” *Response.* NRC agrees with the suggested change. ISG line 89 has been revised to change “events” to “event sequences.” *Comment 6.* The commenter recommends that a definition of the mean value of a probability distribution be included after line 90 of the ISG. *Response.* NRC disagrees that the mean value of a probability distribution needs to be defined in the ISG. The mean of a distribution is a clear and unambiguous statistical term. No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment. *Comment 7.* The commenter states that items 2 and 3, in lines 129-132 of the ISG, “* * * appear to contradict the indication that a quantitative reliability estimate is needed,” and recommends revising the ISG to clarify that quantitative reliability estimates are needed. *Response.* NRC disagrees that the changes recommended by the commenter are necessary. As stated in the ISG, items 1, 2, and 3 are given as examples of methods that may be used, in combination with a code and standard, to obtain quantitative reliability estimates, and do not contradict the need for the quantitative reliability estimates. No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment. *Comment 8.* The commenter states that the use of the term “procedure,” in ISG line 229, does not recognize that many of the actions associated with repository operations, such as crane and trolley operations, will also be skill-based. The commenter recommends that the ISG line 229 be revised to clarify that the review will be of “procedures and activities,” related to the controls and the human interactions associated with each SSC. *Response.* NRC agrees with the commenter. ISG line 229 has been revised to add “and activities” after “procedures.” *Comment 9.* The commenter states that, in Appendix A of the ISG, the probability of dropping a heavy load is estimated with empirical data, then multiplied by the number of times that heavy loads are lifted, to arrive at a number that is characterized as the “expected number of drops.” The use of the word “expected” is misleading, because it implies expected value, which is often used as a synonym for the mean value. The product of these two point estimates cannot be construed as a mean or expected value of the number of drops, because the underlying probability distributions were not developed for them. The commenter recommends that the phrase “expected number of drops” in ISG line 451 should be changed to “point estimate number of drops.” *Response.* NRC disagrees with the change recommended by the commenter. However, the ISG has been revised to clarify the staff's approach. Whereas the staff agrees that the use of the phrase “expected number of drops” may be misleading, the staff disagrees with the reason given in the comment. The ISG calculation uses a classical statistical approach. With this approach, the number of drops in L lifts has a binomial distribution which is typically approximated by a Poisson distribution. The expected value of the Poisson distribution is the product of the drop probability and the presumed number of lifts that may occur in the preclosure facility. Since the drop probability is estimated in this case, the expected number of drops is also estimated. The ISG has been revised to add the above approach after line 449. ISG line 451 has been revised to change “expected” to “estimated.” Also, ISG lines 432 and 489 have been similarly changed. *Comment 10.* Two commenters stated that scientific and technical precedent point to the use of the mean value of a frequency distribution as the appropriate metric for event sequence categorization. One commenter adds that, contrary to this, ISG lines 465-472 appear to point to the use of a fraction of a confidence interval, on which to base a conclusion about categorization of an event sequence. The commenter recommends deleting the sentence, beginning on line 467, and changing lines 470-472 to read as, “The number of expected drops, in this example, would be the mean value of a joint probability distribution of both the conditional drop probability and the number of lifts.” *Response.* In Appendix A of ISG-02, empirical data were used to derive a point estimate for the probability of dropping a cask. To address uncertainty in this point estimate, staff chose a standard statistical approach of the confidence interval method, to determine the confidence level in categorization of the event sequence for the example. NRC does not agree that the sentence beginning on line 467 should be deleted, because it provides an example of a method to illustrate consideration of uncertainty. The 48-percent level of confidence is analogous to reporting the descriptive level of significance, which is often used in reporting the results of a test of a hypothesis. According to the “Statement of Considerations” for Part 63, November 2, 2001 (66 FR 55742), the approach in the rule is to provide DOE with the flexibility to select the type of analysis it believes most appropriate for the license application. Whatever approach DOE uses will need to be supported, taking into account uncertainties. Therefore, analyses relying on point values ( *e.g.* , best-estimate values) will need to discuss how uncertainties are taken into account. NRC agrees that DOE can use the mean value of an event sequence frequency distribution to categorize an event sequence. However, DOE should to consider the uncertainty in any mean value used to categorize event sequences. In particular, DOE should to provide the technical bases for developing the event sequence frequency distribution, including consideration of uncertainties in performance of individual SSCs, the choice of distribution type, and the values of the parameters. ISG lines 470-472 have been deleted, because these lines refer to the estimated conditional drop probability for a specific confidence level, which is not discussed in the ISG. *Comment 11.* The commenter states that ISG line 592 be revised to clarify that the design bases are associated with SSCs and not with an event sequence category, as stated in the ISG. *Response.* NRC agrees with the comment. ISG line 592 has been revised to read as follows: “Design bases ( *e.g.* , loadings on SSCs associated with Category 1 and Category 2 event sequences, such as a canister drop event); and * * *.” *Comment 12.* The commenter states that the definition of “S = C/D,” in line 617, appears to be inconsistent with the definition in Figure B-2 of the ISG. The commenter recommends that either the definition of “S,” in line 617, be revised, or that Figure B-2 be revised. *Response.* NRC disagrees with the commenter that definition of “S” in ISG line 617, and Figure B-2 are inconsistent. Figure B-2 is consistent with the commonly used definition of the limit state function in the form of S = C/D, as shown in line 617, where C and D are the capacity and demand, respectively. Staff, however, recognizes that Y-axis labeling in Figure B-2, and description of the ISG lines 680-681, may have resulted in an appearance of inconsistency. As stated in ISG line 676, Figure B-2 shows the cumulative distribution function of S, with the probability of failure defined as the probability that S is less than or equal to 1. The curve, shown in Figure B-2, is for the constant demand D = 497 mega pascals
(MPa)[72 kips per square inch (ksi)]. Similar curves are derived for two other values of demand values, listed in Appendix B, using a log-normal distribution of the capacity, C, divided by a constant demand, D ( *see* Ref. B.3), and are included in the revised Figure B-2 in the ISG. Probability of failure values for three different demand values, along with their corresponding ratios of American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)code allowable stress to demand, are shown in Table B-3. The results show, as expected, that the probability of failure decreases as the demand decreases. The ISG has been revised as follows: • Figure B-2 has been revised to include plots for all three demand values shown in Table B-3, and the caption has been revised to include “for three demand values”; • Label for the ordinate axis has been changed from “Probability of Failure (x 10 −5 )” to “Cumulative Probability,” and is replotted in the log-scale; • Line 622: The phrase, “ * * * which is traditionally defined as the limit state function” is added at the end of the sentence. • Line 680: A new sentence, “Failure probabilities for various values of demand are shown in Figure B-2.” has been added; • Lines 680-681: sentence has been revised to “Failure probabilities for various values of ratios of ASME allowable stress to these corresponding demand values are given in Table B-3.” *Comment 13.* The commenter stated that the paragraph beginning with line 156 of the ISG specifies that the NRC staff will verify that uncertainty is addressed in the PCSA. The commenter is concerned that this may be interpreted as requiring excessive conservatism in the analysis, and that such an approach would be the opposite of the intent of risk-informed regulation. The commenter recommends that text of the discussion on uncertainty be revised to explicitly recognize this intent. *Response.* NRC agrees that excessive conservatism should be avoided in considering uncertainty. DOE has the flexibility to choose the method to demonstrate that the performance objectives are met. For example, DOE could perform a bounding calculation. As stated in the “Statement of Considerations,” for Part 63, “* * * whatever approach DOE uses will need to be supported, taking into account uncertainties.” For example, if DOE is to portray its PCSA results as best estimates, this term will need to be defined because it has no statistical meaning ( *see* “A Review of Staff Uses of Probabilistic Risk Assessment,” NUREG-1489, March 1994). Staff believes that the paragraph on uncertainty, beginning with ISG line 156, is sufficiently clear, and that no changes are required. No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment. *Comment 14.* The commenter stated that the screening criteria in ISG lines 127-128 presume a preclosure period of 100 years by specifying that the lower bound of Category 2 event sequence frequency is 10 −6 failures/yr. Instead, the staff should be consistent with Part 63 in referring to the lower bound of Category 2 event sequence frequency as the one chance in 10,000 during the period of operation. *Response.* NRC agrees with the comment. Unless there is a reason to state otherwise, the staff will refer to the terminology, used in Part 63, for Category 2 event sequence frequency as having at least one chance in 10,000 of occurring during the preclosure period. The quantitative frequency limit of a Category 2 event sequence is determined by the duration of the preclosure period. ISG line 127 has been revised to change “(e.g., ≤10 −6 failures/year)” to “(e.g., ≤ one chance in 10,000 of occurring during the preclosure period).” ISG line 128 has been revised to delete “(e.g., ≤10 −6 failures/year).” *Comment 15.* The commenter stated that, in ISG line 136, the NRC staff recognizes various sources of reasonable input to the PCSA. It is important that such information does not have to be created under an NRC-licensed quality assurance program. The sources cited in the ISG [e.g., “Generic Data Base, developed by Savannah River Site,” and the Equipment Performance and Information Exchange
(EPIX)System], for reliability input, are reasonable, based on actual operating data, and not skewed by conservatism. Even though applying conservatism is acceptable for safety analysis purposes (e.g., for analytical simplification or bounding uncertainties), doing so distorts the foundation of risk-informed regulation by implying higher risks than actually exist. *Response.* NRC agrees that DOE can use reliability information from published references. However, DOE must provide the technical basis to demonstrate that any reliability information is applicable to the proposed design of the GROA. No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment. *Comment 16.* The commenter stated that, in ISG lines 157-168, the staff should apply additional scrutiny or focus in its review, in cases where a reliability estimate is close to a Category 1 or 2 limit. The ISG should not be taken to imply that DOE is required to submit any additional analysis with its license application. The guidance should be clarified to explicitly recognize that it is incumbent on DOE to determine both if and when a reliability estimate is sufficiently close to a Category 1 or 2 limit to warrant additional consideration, in the license application, as well as the specific nature and extent of any such consideration in the application. *Response.* NRC has not specified criteria for determining when a sequence frequency is close enough to a category limit to warrant additional scrutiny. DOE is expected to provide NRC with enough information to demonstrate that sequences have been correctly categorized. No changes to the ISG were made as a result of this comment. *Comment 17.* The commenter stated that the demand in ISG lines 636-638 is a function of several parameters (e.g., modulus of elasticity, dimension, thermal expansion). The commenter adds that these parameters would affect the material capacity, not the demands placed on the material, and recommends that this sentence be revised by deleting the words “modulus of elasticity, dimensions, thermal expansion.” *Response.* NRC agrees with the comment. Demand on an SSC because of an event, such as a drop or a natural event, would not depend on the modulus of elasticity, dimension, and thermal expansion. ISG lines 636-637 have been revised to delete “modulus of elasticity, dimensions, thermal expansion.” *Comment 18.* One commenter suggested the following editorial changes: Lines 587-588: Revise “* * * including major components of canister structure, internals” to read “* * * including major components of canister structure, and its internals”; Line 622: Revise “function can developed” to read “function can be developed.” *Response.* NRC agrees with the comment. The ISG has been revised to reflect the suggested changes. In addition to the changes described above, the ISG has also been revised, as follows, for clarification: Line 91: The sentence “DOE should identify the key SSCs in an event sequence.” was deleted because “key” SSCs is not formally defined; a new sentence to replace the deleted sentence has been added; Line 446: The definition of λ (now p was reworded for clarity; Lines 445: Though 453: λ was changed to, to distinguish this quantity from λ, which often is used to indicate a rate in the Poisson distribution, and that the quantity is an estimate; Line 622: Clarifying words were added. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Chen, Project Manager, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 [Telephone:
(301)415-5526; fax number:
(301)415-5399; e-mail: *jcc2@nrc.gov* ]; Robert Johnson, Senior Project Manager, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 [Telephone:
(301)415-6900; fax number:
(301)415-5399; e-mail: *rkj@nrc.gov* ]. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day of March, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission., N. King Stablein, Chief, Project Management Branch B, Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 07-1404 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 13
11 references not yet in our index
  • 29 CFR 2570
  • 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)
  • 26 USC 2813
  • 29 CFR 90.2
  • 29 CFR 825
  • 29 CFR 575
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 10 CFR 100
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 52
  • 10 CFR 63
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Proposed Exemption
C.F.R.§ 2570.43
U.S.C.§ 2273
U.S.C.§ 3506
U.S.C.§ 2601
U.S.C.§ 213
C.F.R.§ 50.54
C.F.R.§ 50.47
C.F.R.§ 50.12
C.F.R.§ 51.22
Cite29 CFR 2570
Cite29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)
Cite26 USC 2813
Cites 24 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.