[brief] Indeed, the Department has provided three examples of official Department Orders that apply the Holding Company Act to the acquisition of an exchange.  The Amicus would have this court ignore these orders and cynically suggests that it is not the last ten years of the Department practice that counts, but rather the 45 years that preceded the last ten.  ([...]b4).  In 2014 the Department issued Order No. A14-112 (the “2014 Order”), approving the acquisition of [...], Attorney-in-Fact of [...] (“[...]”) and [...] (“[...]”).  The Commissioner concurred with the Hearing Officer’s Report and approved the acquisition “pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:27A-2,” the provision of the Holding Company Act that regulates acquisition of, control of, or merger with a domestic insurer.  (Ja3).  As explained in greater detail in the Hearing Officer’s Report, [...] was (and still is) a New Jersey-domiciled inter-insurance reciprocal insurance exchange.  (Ja4).  The Hearing Officer’s Report includes numerous citations to specific subsections of N.J.S.A. 17:27A-2.  (Ja4-13).  That includes N.J.S.A. 17:27A-2(d)(1), which provides that the Commissioner shall approve an acquisition of control of a domestic insurer unless he or she finds that one of more of seven disqualifying factors set forth therein exist.  (Ja8).  The Hearing Officer conducted a detailed analysis of each of those seven factors (Ja8-12) and based on that analysis, recommended that the proposed acquisition be approved.  (Ja13).  The same is true of two subsequent Orders and Hearing Officer Reports, leaving no doubt that for at least the past nine years, the Commissioner and the Department have interpreted the Holding Company Act as applying to reciprocal insurance exchanges.  The three orders are just a few examples and constitute evidence of an administrative policy that has previously been expressed in an official and explicit agency determination, adjudication or rule.  Metromedia, 97 N.J. at 331.  C.  The Bulletin Does Not Constitute a Material and Significant Change from a Clear Past Agency Position on the Identical Subject Matter.  The Bulletin’s reminder that the Holding Company Act applies to reciprocal insurance exchanges is consistent with the Department’s position as set forth in the Orders and Hearing Officer Reports described above and in the Department’s brief submitted to the court on November 6, 2023.  Airwork, 97 N.J. at 301 (“it has not been demonstrated that the determination represents a material and significant change in administrative policy, even though the taxing authority did not impose the tax”).  All of those documents are posted on the Department’s website.  [...]’s statement that “The contention that reciprocal exchanges had an obligation to read reports issued by a Hearing Officer to glean whether the Holding Company Act applies to them is a bridge too far” ([...]b7) is both mystifying and irrelevant – mystifying because it advances the notion that members of the highly regulated insurance market have no obligation to stay up-to-date on current law, and irrelevant because whether or not the other reciprocal insurance exchanges stay current with the law, the orders and hearing officer reports document the Department’s unwavering interpretation of the Holding Company Act as applying to reciprocal insurance exchanges.