[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67654-67676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28091]



[[Page 67653]]

Vol. 83

Friday,

No. 248

December 28, 2018

Part IV





Department of Labor





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





Employee Benefits Security Administration





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





Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions; 
Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2018 / 
Notices

[[Page 67654]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration


Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction 
Restrictions

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemptions.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains notices of pendency before the 
Department of Labor (the Department) of 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). If granted, these proposed 
exemptions allow designated parties to engage in transactions that 
would otherwise be prohibited provided the conditions stated there in 
are met. This notice includes the following proposed exemptions: D-
11924, The Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc., the Les Schwab 
Tire Centers of Boise, Inc., and the Les Schwab Tire Centers of 
Portland, Inc.; D-11918, Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings 
Plan; D-11940, Tidewater Savings and Retirement Plan; and D-11947, 
Principal Life Insurance Company (PLIC) and its Affiliates.

DATES: All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or 
requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise 
stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, by February 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: 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.
    All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three 
copies) should be sent via mail to the Employee Benefits Security 
Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 400, Washington, 
DC 20210. Attention: Application No._ stated in each Notice of Proposed 
Exemption or via private delivery service or courier to the Employee 
Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption 
Determinations, U.S. Department of Labor, 122 C St. NW, Suite 400, 
Washington, DC 20001. 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 email or FAX. Any such 
comments or requests should be sent either by email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b6e26444e4f4b6f6467256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a1f57353f3e3a1e1516541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>, 
by FAX to (202) 693-8474, or online through http://www.regulations.gov 
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-1515, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
    WARNING: All comments will be made available to the public. Do not 
include any personally identifiable information (such as Social 
Security number, name, address, or other contact information) or 
confidential business information that you do not want publicly 
disclosed. All comments may be posted on the internet and can be 
retrieved by most internet search engines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all 
interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the 
Department, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed 
Exemption, 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).
    The proposed exemptions were requested in 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 (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department has considered exemption applications 
received prior to December 27, 2011 under the exemption procedures 
set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 
10, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applications contain representations with regard to the 
proposed exemptions 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 Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. (Les Schwab 
Washington), the Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, Inc. (Les Schwab 
Boise), and the Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc. (Les Schwab 
Portland), (collectively, with their Affiliates, Les Schwab or the 
Applicant) Located in Aloha, Oregon; Boise, Idaho; Centralia, 
Washington; and Other Locations [Application No. D-11924].

Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the 
authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA), and section 
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth 
in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 
2011).\2\ If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of 
sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the 
Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 
of the Code, by reason of sections 4975(c)(1)(A), 4975(c)(1)(D) and 
4975(c)(1)(E) of the Code, shall not apply to the sales (each a 
``Sale'' or collectively, the ``Sales'') by the Les Schwab Profit 
Sharing Retirement Plan (the Plan) of the parcels of real property 
described herein (each, a ``Parcel'' or collectively, the ``Parcels'') 
to the Applicant, where the Applicant is a party in interest with 
respect to the Plan, provided that certain conditions are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to the 
provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, should 
be read to refer as well to the corresponding provisions of the 
Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Facts and Representations \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Summary of Facts and Representations is based solely on 
the representations of the Applicant and does not reflect the views 
of the Department, unless indicated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    1. Les Schwab Tire Centers (together with its affiliates, Les 
Schwab) was founded by its namesake in 1952 in Prineville, Oregon, in 
order to sell tires, batteries and other automotive equipment, and 
provide vehicle maintenance services. There are now approximately 482 
Les Schwab tire and automotive service centers located primarily in the 
Northwest and with over $1.7 billion in annual sales. Their

[[Page 67655]]

facilities are located in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, 
Utah, California, Colorado, and Idaho.
    2. Les Schwab is comprised of 13 distinct legal entities. Certain 
entities are ``S'' corporations. The 13 entities constitute various 
controlled groups but do not constitute a single controlled group. The 
Form 5500 Annual Report for the Plan is filed as a multiple employer 
plan. The thirteen entities do include Les Schwab Washington, Les 
Schwab Idaho, Les Schwab Portland, and Les Schwab Warehouse Center, 
Inc. (the Warehouse Center).
    3. All entities within the Les Schwab controlled groups are owned 
by Alan Schwab, Diana Tomseth, Julie Waibel, and Leslie Tuftin (or by 
trusts for the benefit of such individuals and/or their children). Mr. 
Schwab and Ms. Tomseth are siblings, and Ms. Waibel and Ms. Tuftin are 
siblings. These four individuals are the grandchildren of Les Schwab 
and they are also currently employees of the Warehouse Center and board 
members of Les Schwab. The Applicant states that each of these four 
individuals is a Plan participant, as well as an owner-employee because 
they each own more than 5 percent of the stock of Les Schwab.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``owner-employee'' is defined under section 408(d) 
of the Act to include persons as defined in section 401(c)(3) of the 
Code, such as an employee who owns the entire interest in an 
unincorporated trade or business, or in the case of a partnership, a 
partner who owns more than 10 percent of either the capital interest 
or profits interest of such partnership. The term ``owner-employee'' 
also includes, in relevant part, (a) a shareholder-employee, which 
is an employee or officer of an S corporation who owns more than 5 
percent of the outstanding stock of such corporation; (b) a member 
of the family of such owner-employee; or (c) a corporation in which 
such shareholder-employee owns, directly or indirectly, 50% or more 
of the total combined voting power of all classes of voting stock of 
a corporation or 50% or more of the total value of all classes of 
stock of such corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Plan is a qualified multiple-employer, defined contribution 
profit-sharing plan located in Bend, Oregon. The Plan is sponsored by 
the Warehouse Center. Thirteen employers, including Les Schwab 
Washington, Les Schwab Idaho, and Les Schwab Portland participate in 
the Plan. As of December 31, 2017, the Plan had 7,444 participants and 
beneficiaries. Also, as of December 31, 2017, the Plan had total assets 
of $730,454,671. The Applicant states that the Plan is the sole 
retirement plan available for Les Schwab employees.
    5. The Administrative and Investment Committee of the Plan (the 
Committee) has the sole discretionary investment authority over the 
Plan and is a named fiduciary. The Committee has the exclusive right 
and discretionary authority to control, manage and operate the Plan. 
This includes the authority to direct the investment of the Plan's 
assets and to appoint and remove the Plan's Trustees and investment 
managers.
    The Committee consists of seven trustees (the Trustees), who 
include executives and officers of Les Schwab. The Trustees are 
appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Warehouse Center. All 
of the Trustees are employees of the Warehouse Center, and some are 
officers of the Warehouse Center and Les Schwab Washington, Les Schwab 
Idaho and Les Schwab Portland.

Parcel Purchases

    6. Over time, the Plan purchased twenty-six parcels of real 
property (collectively, the Parcels). As described below, following the 
purchases, the Plan entered into leases with various Les Schwab 
entities.\5\ These Parcels of real property were then improved by the 
construction of buildings that were paid for by the Les Schwab entities 
or the Plan. Under the terms of the leases, the Les Schwab entities or 
the Plan retained title to these buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Applicant represents that these leases are exempt under 
section 408(e) of the Act. Section 408(e) of the Act provides, in 
pertinent part, that the restrictions of sections 406 and 407 of the 
Act shall not apply to the acquisition, sale or lease by a plan of 
qualifying employer real property if--(a) such acquisition, sale, or 
lease is for adequate consideration; (b) no commission is charged 
with respect thereto; and (c) the plan is an eligible individual 
account plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Applicant asserts that the Plan was initially motivated to 
purchase and lease the Parcels to Les Schwab as a means to provide a 
secure return on the Plan's investments. In this regard, the Plan had 
intimate knowledge of Les Schwab's business success and 
creditworthiness, and determined that leasing the Parcels to Les Schwab 
was a prudent investment decision.
    7. On October 6, 2015, the Department issued a notice of final 
exemption in connection with the sale by the Plan to the Applicant of 
five Parcels of real property.\6\ The Applicant seeks a similar 
individual exemption for the Sales of 19 Parcels on which Les Schwab 
leases the Parcels from the Plan and operates tire centers through an 
affiliate.\7\ Given that Les Schwab has retained title to the buildings 
that have been constructed on some of the Parcels, pursuant to the 
terms of the relevant leases, in some instances, the purchases do not 
involve the buildings themselves. Each Parcel that is the subject of 
the proposed Sales is described below in further detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See PTE 2015-18, 80 FR 60503 (October 6, 2015).
    \7\ Les Schwab represents that, in addition to the five parcels 
covered by PTE 2015-18 and the 19 parcels covered by this proposed 
exemption, the Plan owns a parcel in Aberdeen, Washington (the 
Aberdeen Parcel) and a parcel in Moscow, Idaho (the Moscow Parcel). 
With respect to the Aberdeen Parcel, Les Schwab represents that the 
Applicant has not made a business decision on whether Les Schwab 
Washington will purchase the property. Les Schwab represents that, 
with respect to the Moscow Parcel, the option to purchase the 
property from the Plan is not yet exercisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Aloha Parcel

    8. The Plan purchased a 1.97-acre parcel of property, located at 
19100 SW Shaw Street in Aloha, Oregon (the Aloha Parcel), from an 
unrelated party in October 1986, for a total purchase price of 
$300,194.
    The Plan and Les Schwab Portland entered into a lease of the Aloha 
Parcel (the Aloha Parcel Lease), on January 1, 1987, with the Plan as 
landlord, and Les Schwab Portland, as tenant. Effective as of its 
renewal term commencing January 1, 2014, the monthly rent is $14,453 
per month.
    In March 1988, the Plan completed the construction of two general 
automotive buildings and the canopy, for a total cost of $614,824. Les 
Schwab Portland then constructed a third general automotive building 
for a cost of $171,968.
    The Aloha Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which Les 
Schwab Portland has the right to purchase the Aloha Parcel. Pursuant to 
the terms of the Aloha Parcel Lease, the applicable option price is 
based on the greater of $300,194 plus the landlord's total cost of 
improvements, or the fair market value of the Aloha Parcel, as 
determined by the corresponding independent appraisal discussed in 
paragraph 31 (the Independent Appraisal). Les Schwab Portland now seeks 
to exercise its option to purchase the Aloha Parcel from the Plan.

The Boise Broadway Parcel

    9. On February 13, 1990, the Plan purchased 1.66 acres of land, 
located at 2045 Broadway Avenue in Boise, Idaho (the Boise Broadway 
Parcel), from an unrelated party, for a total purchase price, including 
closing costs, of $398,085.
    On June 1, 1990, the Plan and Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, 
Idaho (Les Schwab Boise) entered into a ground lease of the Boise 
Broadway Parcel (the Boise Broadway Parcel Lease), with the Plan, as 
landlord, and Les Schwab Boise, as tenant. On May 1, 1991, Les Schwab 
Boise opened a retail tire store facility on the Boise Broadway 
Property in a building that it had constructed for $437,061. Effective 
as of

[[Page 67656]]

the lease renewal term of January 1, 2016, the monthly rent is $6,163 
per month.
    The Boise Broadway Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under 
which Les Schwab Boise has the right to purchase the Boise Broadway 
Parcel. Pursuant to the terms of the Boise Broadway Parcel Lease, the 
applicable option price is based on the greater of $398,085, plus the 
landlord's total cost of improvements, or the fair market value of the 
Boise Broadway Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les 
Schwab Boise now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the Boise 
Broadway Parcel from the Plan.

The Boise State Street Parcel

    10. On May 12, 1978, the Plan purchased 1.41 acres of real property 
located at 6520 West State Street in Boise, Idaho (the Boise State 
Street Parcel) from an unrelated party. The total purchase price for 
the Boise State Street Parcel was $238,600. The Boise State Street 
Parcel is comprised of: (a) Two buildings: A 7,000 square foot retail 
store building, and a 6,400 square foot building housing a shop 
warehouse; and (b) two canopy areas, of 1,920 square feet and 1,400 
square feet, that are attached to the retail store building.
    On April 1, 1981, the Plan and Les Schwab Boise entered into a 
ground lease of a portion of the Boise State Street Parcel, with the 
Plan as landlord, and Les Schwab Boise, as tenant (the Boise State 
Street Parcel Lease). The Plan purchased additional land in 1988, which 
was added to the leased premises. The additional land was used for the 
construction of a brake and alignment center to expand Les Schwab 
Boise's business. The cost of the additional land was $42,185. The Plan 
in 1988 constructed a brake and alignment building on recently-
purchased land for $137,198. The Plan made improvements to the roof 
system in 1989, for which the Plan paid $10,807. Effective as of its 
lease renewal term of August 1, 2017, the monthly rent for the Boise 
State Street Parcel is $11,977.
    The Boise State Street Parcel Lease includes a purchase option 
under which Les Schwab Boise has the right to purchase the Boise State 
Street Parcel. Pursuant to the terms of the Boise State Street Parcel 
Lease, the applicable option price is based on the greater of $103,900 
plus the landlord's total cost of improvements, or the fair market 
value of the Boise State Street Parcel, as determined by the 
Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab Boise now seeks to exercise its 
option to purchase the Boise State Street Parcel from the Plan.

The Centralia Parcel

    11. On June 18, 1987, the Plan purchased a 1.06 acre parcel of real 
property consisting of vacant land located at 1211 Harrison Avenue in 
Centralia, Washington (the Centralia Parcel) from an unrelated party, 
for a total purchase price, including closing costs of $139,909.
    On October 1, 1987, the Plan, as landlord, leased the Centralia 
Parcel to Les Schwab Washington, as tenant, under the provisions of a 
ground lease (the Centralia Parcel Lease). In 1988, Les Schwab 
Washington completed the construction of a building and improvements 
that were suitable for the operation of a retail tire store and other 
commercial purposes, at its own expense, for a total cost of $347,378. 
Since January 1, 2014, Les Schwab Washington has been paying the Plan 
$1,860 per month under the Centralia Parcel Lease.
    The Centralia Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Centralia Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Centralia Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $139,909, or the fair market 
value of the Centralia Parcel, as determined by the Independent 
Appraisal. Les Schwab Washington now seeks to exercise its option to 
purchase the Centralia Parcel from the Plan.

The Chehalis Parcel

    12. On April 21, 1980, the Plan purchased a 44,615 square foot 
parcel of real property located at 36 N Market Boulevard in Chehalis, 
Washington, including the land and a building (the Chehalis Parcel), 
from an unrelated party, for a total purchase price of $200,000.
    On June 1, 1980, the Plan, as landlord, entered into a lease of the 
Chehalis Parcel (the Chehalis Parcel Lease) with Les Schwab Washington, 
as tenant, which commenced on September 1, 1980. Pursuant to the 
current Chehalis Parcel Lease, since August 1, 2017, Les Schwab 
Washington pays the Plan monthly rent of $10,487.
    The Plan constructed, at its own expense, two buildings and related 
improvements on the Chehalis Parcel that were suitable for the 
operation of a retail tire store and other purposes by Les Schwab 
Washington. The cost of the building and improvements was $286,947.
    The Chehalis Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Chehalis Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Chehalis Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on: The greater of (a) $120,000 plus the Plan's 
total cost of improvements made on the Chehalis Parcel, or (b) the fair 
market value of Chehalis Parcel, as determined by the Independent 
Appraisal. Les Schwab Washington now seeks to exercise its option to 
purchase the Chehalis Parcel from the Plan.

The Ellensburg Parcels

    13. In August 1977, Les Schwab Washington purchased approximately 
71,438 square feet of land located at 1206 South Canyon Road, 
Ellensburg, Washington from unrelated parties for $80,000. Les Schwab 
Washington then subdivided the land into three parcels: Ellensburg 
Parcel #1, Ellensburg Parcel #2, and Ellensburg Parcel #3. Because Les 
Schwab Washington retained Ellensburg Parcel #3, and subsequently sold 
it to an unrelated party, the property and lease descriptions below 
pertain solely to Ellensburg Parcels #1 and #2, which are together 
referred to herein as the ``Ellensburg Parcels.''
    In December 1979, Les Schwab Washington and the Plan entered into a 
sale and leaseback arrangement, whereby Les Schwab Washington sold 
Ellensburg Parcel #1 to the Plan for $108,600. Effective January 1, 
1980, the Plan entered into a lease with Les Schwab Washington (the 
Ellensburg Parcel #1 Lease). The Plan paid $214,567 to construct a 
building and related improvements suitable for the retail tire store 
and other purposes. Les Schwab Washington has been paying the Plan 
$7,503 per month since January 1, 2016.
    With respect to Ellensburg Parcel #2, which shares the same street 
address as Ellensburg Parcel #1, the Applicant represents that Les 
Schwab Washington constructed a small general purpose commercial 
building (an alignment center) thereon for $85,834. The building was 
subsequently incorporated into the Ellensburg Parcel #1 Leases.
    The Ellensburg Parcel #1 Lease includes a purchase option under 
which Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Ellensburg 
Parcels. Under the terms of the Ellensburg Parcel #1 Lease, the option 
price will be the greater of $425,232 plus the landlord's total cost of 
improvements, or the fair market value of the Ellensburg Parcels, as 
determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab Washington now 
seeks to exercise the option to purchase the Ellensburg Parcels from 
the Plan.

The Independence Parcel

    14. In December 1979, the Plan purchased a 53,000-square foot 
parcel of

[[Page 67657]]

property located at 1710 Monmouth Avenue, Independence, Oregon (the 
Independence Parcel), consisting of land and a building from Les Schwab 
Portland for $301,149.
    On January 1, 1980, the Plan began leasing the Independence Parcel 
to Les Schwab Portland, under the provisions of a written lease (the 
Independence Parcel Lease). Les Schwab Portland has been paying the 
Plan $6,984 per month since January 1, 2016.
    The Independence Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under 
which Les Schwab Portland has the right to purchase the Independence 
Parcel. Pursuant to the terms of the Independence Parcel Lease, the 
applicable option price is based on the greater of $329,197 plus the 
landlord's total cost of improvements, or the fair market value of the 
Independence Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les 
Schwab Washington now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the 
Independence Parcel from the Plan.

The Lakewood Parcel

    15. On May 31, 1988, the Plan purchased two parcels of land, 
located at 3809 Steilacoom Boulevard SW, Tacoma, Washington (with the 
additions described below, the Lakewood Parcel), and totaling 43,050 
square feet, from unrelated parties, for $200,388. On June 1, 1988, the 
Plan entered into a ground lease of one of the parcels with Les Schwab 
Washington, for an initial monthly rent of $1,336 (the Lakewood Parcel 
Lease).
    In January 1989, the Plan purchased an additional 11,760 square 
foot parcel of land, from unrelated parties, for $59,033. Furthermore, 
in 2002, the Plan purchased a 12,000 square foot tract of land on the 
Lakewood Parcel, from unrelated parties, for $85,596. In 2005, the Plan 
purchased 7,730 square feet of land from unrelated parties, for 
$126,480. Since January 1, 2014, the monthly rent for the Lakewood 
Parcel has been $5,429.
    The Lakewood Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Lakewood Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Lakewood Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $200,388, plus the landlord's 
total cost of improvements, or the fair market value of the Lakewood 
Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab 
Washington now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the Lakewood 
Parcel from the Plan.

The Longview Parcel

    16. On December 18, 1979, Les Schwab Washington purchased 1.89 
acres of land located at 1420 Industrial Way in Longview, Washington 
(the Longview Parcel) from an unrelated party for $86,350. On May 14, 
1981, Les Schwab Washington sold the Longview Parcel to the Plan for 
$90,704.
    On May 14, 1981, the Plan and Les Schwab Washington entered into a 
commercial lease of the land comprising the Longview Parcel, with the 
Plan as landlord, and Les Schwab Washington, as tenant (the Longview 
Parcel Lease). Since August 1, 2017, the monthly rent has been $13,979.
    In 1981, the Plan completed improvements on the Longview Parcel 
that included a 14,830 square foot retail tire store costing $267,902. 
Other improvements were funded and constructed by the Plan in 1983, at 
an expense of $70,174, and in 1986, at an expense of $88,773, for a 
3,600 square foot warehouse building.
    The Longview Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Longview Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Longview Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $90,704 plus the landlord's 
total cost of improvements, or the fair market value of the Longview 
Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab 
Washington now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the Longview 
Parcel from the Plan.

The Marysville Parcels

    17. On July 24, 1984, the Plan purchased 61,346 square feet of land 
located at 8405 State Avenue, Marysville, Washington (Marysville Parcel 
A) from an unrelated party, for a total contract price of $235,287. 
Pursuant to a ground lease dated August 1, 1984, the Plan began leasing 
the land ``as is'' to Les Schwab Washington (the Marysville Parcel 
Lease). Les Schwab Washington subsequently completed construction of a 
retail store at its own cost in 1985.
    The Plan acquired 26,136 square feet of additional land (Marysville 
Parcel B) \8\ in March 1999 for a price of $160,125. Marysville Parcel 
B was added to the Marysville Parcel Lease, effective June 15, 1999. 
Since August 1, 2014, the monthly rent charged by the Plan to Les 
Schwab Washington was $6,229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Marysville Parcel A and Marysville Parcel B are together 
referred to herein as the ``Marysville Parcels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Marysville Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Marysville Parcels. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Marysville Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $398,564, or the fair market 
value of the Marysville Parcels, as determined by the Independent 
Appraisal. Les Schwab Washington now seeks to exercise its option to 
purchase the Marysville Parcels from the Plan.

The North Bend Parcel

    18. On June 3, 1988, the Plan purchased land located at 610 E North 
Bend Way, North Bend, Washington (the North Bend Parcel) from an 
unrelated party for $200,364. On September 1, 1988, the Plan and Les 
Schwab Washington entered into a ground lease of the land comprising 
the North Bend Parcel, with the Plan as landlord, and Les Schwab 
Washington, as tenant (the North Bend Parcel Lease).
    In 1991, Les Schwab Washington opened a 3,500-square-foot retail 
tire store facility on the North Bend Parcel that it had constructed 
for $878,000. Since January 1, 2014, the monthly rent charged to Les 
Schwab Washington has been $2,578.
    The North Bend Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the North Bend Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the North Bend Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $200,364 plus Landlord's total 
cost of improvements, or the fair market value of the North Bend 
Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab 
Washington now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the North Bend 
Parcel from the Plan.

The Oregon City Parcels

    19. In October 1980, the Plan purchased two parcels of land. The 
first parcel comprised of 41,951 square feet of land (Oregon City 
Parcel #1), and the second parcel comprised of 42,757 square feet of 
land (Oregon City Parcel #2), located at 1625 Beavercreek Road, Oregon 
City, Oregon, from an unrelated third party for $250,000. In July 1984, 
the Plan sold Oregon City Parcel #2 to Les Schwab Portland for 
$151,000.
    On November 1, 1981, the Plan and Les Schwab Portland entered into 
a ground lease of the land comprising Oregon City Parcel #1, with the 
Plan, as landlord, and Les Schwab Portland, as tenant (the Oregon City 
Parcel #1 Lease).
    In 1982, Les Schwab Portland opened a 7,850-square-foot retail tire 
store facility on Oregon City Parcel #1 that it

[[Page 67658]]

had constructed for $366,000. Since August 1, 2017, the monthly rent 
charged to Les Schwab Portland increased to $4,470.
    The Oregon City Parcel #1 Lease includes a purchase option under 
which Les Schwab Portland has the right to purchase Oregon City Parcel 
#1. Pursuant to the terms of the Oregon City Parcel #1 Lease, the 
applicable option price is based on the greater of $136,500, or the 
fair market value of Oregon City Parcel #1, as determined by the 
Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab Portland now seeks to exercise its 
option to purchase Oregon City Parcel #1 from the Plan.

The Pullman Parcel

    20. In November 1981, the Plan purchased 0.77 acres of land, 
located at 160 SE Bishop Boulevard in Pullman, Washington (the Pullman 
Parcel), from an unrelated party for a total purchase price of $75,704.
    On November 10, 1981, the Plan and Les Schwab Washington entered 
into a ground lease of the land comprising the Pullman Parcel, with the 
Plan, as landlord, and Les Schwab Washington, as tenant (the Pullman 
Parcel Lease). In 1987, Les Schwab Washington opened a 7,300-square-
foot retail tire store facility on the Pullman Parcel that it had 
constructed for $345,000. Since August 1, 2017, the monthly rent 
charged to Les Schwab Washington has been $3,356.
    The Pullman Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which Les 
Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Pullman Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Pullman Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $80,704, or the fair market 
value of the Pullman Parcel, as determined by the Independent 
Appraisal. Les Schwab Washington now seeks to exercise its option to 
purchase the Pullman Parcel from the Plan.

The Silverton Parcel

    21. In November 1986, the Plan purchased 1.18 acres of land, 
located at 911 North 1st Street in Silverton, Oregon (the Silverton 
Parcel), from an unrelated party for a total purchase price of $50,739.
    On March 1, 1987, the Plan and Les Schwab Portland entered into a 
ground lease of the land comprising the Silverton Parcel, with the 
Plan, as landlord, and Les Schwab Portland, as tenant (the Silverton 
Parcel Lease).
    As agreed upon under the Silverton Parcel Lease, in 1987, the Plan 
constructed a tire store facility on the Silverton Parcel, for a total 
cost of $307,725. In 1992 the Plan funded additional improvements on 
the Silverton Parcel at a cost of $153,276. Since January 1, 2013, the 
monthly rent charged to Les Schwab Portland has been $7,900.
    The Silverton Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Portland has the right to purchase the Silverton Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Silverton Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $50,730 plus the landlord's 
total cost of improvements, or the fair market value of the Silverton 
Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab Portland 
now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the Silverton Parcel from 
the Plan.

The Snohomish Parcel

    22. In March 1992, the Plan purchased 1.01 acres of land located at 
711 Avenue D, Snohomish, Washington, from an unrelated party for an 
aggregate purchase price of $614,534. In January 1993, the Plan 
purchased approximately 0.07 acres of land adjacent to the initial 
tract for $46,800, also from an unrelated party. For purposes of this 
proposed exemption, both tracts of land are referred to herein as the 
``Snohomish Parcel.''
    On July 1, 1992, the Plan and Les Schwab Washington entered into a 
ground lease with the Plan of the initial tract of land comprising the 
Snohomish Parcel (the Snohomish Parcel), with the Plan as landlord, and 
Les Schwab Washington, as tenant.
    In 1993, Les Schwab Washington opened a 14,300-square-foot retail 
tire store facility on the Snohomish Parcel that it had constructed for 
$825,000. Since January 1, 2013, the monthly rent charged to Les Schwab 
Washington has been $7,283.
    The Snohomish Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Snohomish Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Snohomish Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $614,534, plus the landlord's 
total cost of improvements, or the fair market value of the Snohomish 
Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab 
Washington now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the Snohomish 
Parcel from the Plan.

The Spanaway Parcel

    23. In January 1985, the Plan purchased 0.97 acres of land located 
at 16819 Pacific Avenue South, Spanaway, Washington (the Spanaway 
Parcel) from an unrelated third party for an aggregate purchase price 
of $283,340. In July 1990, the Plan purchased a 14,100 square foot 
parcel next to the initial parcel from an unrelated third party for 
$45,743. In May 1999, the Plan purchased an additional 8,000 square 
foot parcel from an unrelated third party for $58,000. The three land 
parcels totaling 1.48 acres comprise the Spanaway property (the 
Spanaway Parcel). On February 1, 1985, the Plan and Les Schwab 
Washington entered into a ground lease of the land comprising the 
initial parcel (the Spanaway Parcel Lease), with the Plan, as landlord, 
and Les Schwab Washington, as tenant.
    In late 1985, Les Schwab Washington opened a 15,000-spare-foot 
retail tire store facility on the Spanaway Parcel that it had 
constructed for $406,000. Since August 1, 2015, the monthly rent 
charged to Les Schwab Washington has been $6,615.
    The Spanaway Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which 
Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Spanaway Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Spanaway Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $329,083, or the fair market 
value of the Spanaway Parcel, as determined by the Independent 
Appraisal. Les Schwab Washington now seeks to exercise its option to 
purchase the Spanaway Parcel from the Plan.

The Spokane Parcel

    24. In November 1981, the Plan purchased 0.88 acres of land, 
located at 8103 North Division Street, Spokane, Washington (the Spokane 
Parcel), from an unrelated third party for an aggregate purchase price 
of $205,000.
    On November 10, 1981, the Plan and Les Schwab Washington entered 
into a ground lease of the land comprising the Spokane Parcel, with the 
Plan, as landlord, and Les Schwab Washington, as tenant (the Spokane 
Parcel Lease).
    In 1982, Les Schwab Washington opened a 7,400-square-foot retail 
tire store facility on the Spokane Parcel that it had constructed for 
$263,000. Since August 1, 2012, the monthly rent to Les Schwab 
Washington has been $5,175.
    The Spokane Parcel Lease includes a purchase option under which Les 
Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the Spokane Parcel. 
Pursuant to the terms of the Spokane Parcel Lease, the applicable 
option price is based on the greater of $205,172, or the fair market 
value of the Spokane Parcel, as determined by the Independent 
Appraisal. Les Schwab Washington now seeks to exercise its option to 
purchase the Spokane Parcel from the Plan.

[[Page 67659]]

The Vancouver Andresen Parcel

    25. On October 12, 1989, the Plan purchased 0.78 acres of land 
located at 2420 NE Andresen Road, Vancouver, Washington (the Vancouver 
Andresen Parcel), from an unrelated third party for an aggregate 
purchase price of $245,265.
    On January 1, 1990, the Plan and Les Schwab Washington entered into 
a ground lease of the land comprising the Vancouver Andresen Parcel 
(the Vancouver Andresen Parcel Lease), with the Plan, as landlord, and 
Les Schwab Washington, as tenant.
    In 1991, Les Schwab Washington opened a 10,300-square-foot retail 
tire store facility on the Vancouver Andresen Parcel that it had 
constructed for $557,000. Since January 1, 2015, the monthly rent 
charged to Les Schwab Washington has been $3,671.
    The Vancouver Andresen Parcel Lease includes a purchase option 
under which Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the 
Vancouver Andresen Parcel. Pursuant to the terms of the Vancouver 
Andresen Parcel Lease, the applicable option price is based on the 
greater of $245,264, or the fair market value of the Vancouver Andresen 
Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab 
Washington now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the Vancouver 
Andresen Parcel from the Plan.

The Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel

    26. On August 26, 1981, the Plan purchased 0.69 acres of land 
located at 216 SE 118th Avenue, Vancouver, Washington (the Vancouver 
Cascade Park Parcel), from an unrelated third party for an aggregate 
purchase price of $156,300.
    On July 1, 1983, the Plan and Les Schwab Washington entered into a 
ground lease of the land comprising the Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel 
(the Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel Lease), with the Plan, as landlord, 
and Les Schwab Washington, as tenant.
    In late 1983, Les Schwab Washington opened a 13,000-square-foot 
retail tire store facility on the Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel that it 
had constructed for $304,000. Since January 1, 2015, the monthly rent 
charged to Les Schwab Washington has been $3,765.
    The Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel Lease includes a purchase option 
under which Les Schwab Washington has the right to purchase the 
Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel. Pursuant to the terms of the Vancouver 
Cascade Park Parcel Lease, the applicable option price is based on the 
greater of $156,300, or the fair market value of the Vancouver Cascade 
Park Parcel, as determined by the Independent Appraisal. Les Schwab 
Washington now seeks to exercise its option to purchase the Vancouver 
Cascade Park Parcel from the Plan.

Terms of the Sales

    27. Each Sale must be a one-time transaction for cash. At the time 
of the Sales, the Plan will receive no less than the fair market value 
of each Parcel, as determined by the Appraisers, whose current 
Appraisals will be updated on the date of the Sales. In this regard, to 
the extent the terms of any lease allow a Sale price that is greater 
than a Parcel's fair market value, then the price received by the Plan 
for such Parcel will equal such greater Sale price. In addition, the 
Applicant represents that the Plan will not pay any costs, including 
brokerage commissions, fees, appraisal costs, or any other expenses 
associated with the Sales. Further, the terms and conditions of each 
Sale will be at least as favorable to the Plan as those obtainable in 
an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party. Finally, a 
qualified independent fiduciary will represent the interests of the 
Plan with respect to each Sale. Among other things, such independent 
fiduciary will monitor each sale throughout its duration, review and 
approve the methodology and ultimate valuation determination of the 
qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser), and 
determine, on behalf of the Plan, whether it is prudent to proceed with 
the transaction.

The Independent Fiduciary

    28. Les Schwab represents that American Realty Advisors (ARA) of 
Glendale, California was retained to serve as a qualified independent 
fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary) to the Plan for purposes of 
evaluating and approving the Sales. ARA represents that it is an 
investment manager of institutional quality commercial real estate 
portfolios with 529 investors and over $8.7 billion in assets under 
management as of June 30, 2018. ARA is one of the largest privately-
held real estate investment management firms in the United States and 
has been providing real estate investment management for over 28 years.
    ARA represents that it qualifies as an independent fiduciary under 
the Department's Prohibited Transaction Exemption Procedures (see 29 
CFR 2570, October 27, 2011, at 29 CFR 2570.34(d)).\9\ ARA states that 
it acknowledges, understands, and accepts its duties under ERISA and is 
acting as the Independent Fiduciary to the Plan in relation to the 
exemption application. Further, ARA represents that it is authorized by 
the Plan to take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of 
the Plan and will, during the pendency of the Sales: (a) Monitor the 
Sales on behalf of the Plan; (b) ensure that the Sales remain in the 
interests of the Plan and, if not, take any appropriate actions 
available under the particular circumstances; and (c) enforce 
compliance with all conditions and obligations imposed on any party 
dealing with the Plan with respect to each transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 29 CFR 2570.34(d) requires that an Independent Fiduciary 
provide to the Department, under penalty of perjury: (1) A summary 
of the Independent Fiduciary's qualifications to serve in such 
capacity; (2) a description of any relationship between the 
Independent Fiduciary and a party in interest with respect to the 
transaction or its affiliates; (3) an acknowledgement by the 
Independent Fiduciary of its duties and responsibilities under ERISA 
in acting as a fiduciary on behalf of the plan; and (4) the 
percentage of the Independent Fiduciary's current revenue that is 
derived from any party in interest involved in the transaction or 
its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ARA represents that it does not have any relationship with the 
parties involved in the proposed transaction, beyond its role as the 
Independent Fiduciary.
    As part of its Independent Fiduciary duties and responsibilities, 
ARA completed the following tasks: (a) Toured each of the Parcels and 
inspected comparable land sales, as outlined in each of the appraisals 
CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) completed for each Parcel (the Independent 
Appraisals); (b) engaged the Independent Appraisers and instructed them 
with respect to the objectives of each Independent Appraisal, the 
specific nuances of the Parcel leases between Les Schwab and the Plan 
(the Leases), and the valuation process, taking into account the 
questions posed by the Department during its review of the exemption 
application in connection with its granting of PTE 2015-18; (c) 
reviewed the Independent Appraisals; (d) reviewed the annual audited 
financial statements for the Plan from 1980 to the present to assess 
the treatment of the Leases by the auditor and obtained additional 
documentation from Les Schwab in support of the rental payments made 
under the Leases; (e) reviewed and summarized the terms and conditions 
of the Leases and relevant amendments; (f) researched additional 
questions posed by the Department; and (g) reviewed the composition of 
the existing real estate portfolio of the Plan and the Plan's Statement 
of Investment Policy dated September 1, 2015. Further, the Independent 
Fiduciary examined

[[Page 67660]]

whether the Plan received rental income on a timely basis under the 
Leases, and reviewed audited financial statements for the Plan prepared 
by PriceWaterhouse Coopers and Roberts, McMains, Sellman & Co. for the 
years 1981-2015.
    The Independent Fiduciary represents that it will represent the 
interests of the Plan in the proposed Sales. In so doing, the 
Independent Fiduciary will: (a) Determine whether it is prudent to go 
forward with each Sale; (b) negotiate, review, and approve the terms 
and conditions of each Sale; (c) monitor and manage the Sales on behalf 
of the Plan throughout their duration, taking any appropriate actions 
it deems necessary to safeguard the interests of the Plan.

The Independent Fiduciary Reports

    29. ARA submitted to the Department its reports, dated September 8, 
2016 (the Independent Fiduciary Reports), that document ARA's analysis 
of the proposed Sale for each Parcel and ARA's recommendations for the 
Plan.
    In the Independent Fiduciary Reports, ARA represents that the Sales 
are the most favorable option for the Plan and its participants and 
beneficiaries, because the improvements have significant age and 
limited future value (in addition to the current value of the 
underlying land), to anyone other than Les Schwab.
    ARA concludes that the Leases between the Plan and the applicable 
Les Schwab affiliates with their rental rates and Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) adjustments are consistent with market terms and conditions at 
the time the Leases were negotiated and are consistent of similar 
transactions between unrelated parties. ARA also concludes that the 
appraised values of the Parcels as presented within the Independent 
Appraisals are accurate reflections of current market conditions and 
form the basis for establishing fair market prices for the Sales.
    Further, ARA notes that the Plan's real estate holdings as outlined 
by the 2015 audited statement are approximately 14.7% of the total 
assets of the Plan and are just below the parameters of the Plan's 
Statement of Investment Policy dated January 1, 2015. The proposed 
Sales of the Parcels, in addition to the recent January 2016 sale of 
the Lacey, Renton, Bothell, Sandy and Twin Falls Parcels, would reduce 
the real estate holdings of the Plan to approximately 10.8% of the 
total assets of the Plan. This falls below the investment threshold but 
would modestly increase the liquidity of the Plan. The Investment 
Policy Statement establishes the policy range for real estate and other 
real assets within a range of 15% and 25% of the portfolio. The Sales 
results in a real estate allocation that is under the policy range but 
would allow the Plan to continue its diversification strategy away from 
directly owned real estate toward real estate assets with greater 
liquidity, increased diversification and decreased liability risk.
    ARA also represents, in the Independent Fiduciary Reports, that it 
has reviewed audited financial statements of the Plan, as noted above, 
for the years 1981 through 2015, unaudited financial statements to the 
end of February 2016, the Plan records of rental income received from 
the present back to 1995, and the scheduled rent for all of the leases 
individually from inception to the present. ARA states that there is no 
reason to conclude that the lessees owe the Plan any additional rent 
related the failure of either party to comply with the terms and 
conditions of the Leases.
    Further, ARA concludes, in the Independent Fiduciary Reports, that 
the Sales are administratively feasible and would be fairly routine 
executions for an experienced real estate investment manager. ARA 
represents that it will: (a) Monitor and manage the proposed 
transactions on behalf of the Plan; (b) take any appropriate actions to 
safeguard the interests of the Plan; (c) represent the interests of the 
Plan in the proposed Sales; and (d) negotiate, review, and approve the 
terms and conditions of the proposed Sales.

The Independent Appraisers

    30. The Applicant represents that the appraisals of the Parcels 
were conducted by Whitney Haucke, David Adamson, Jeff Grose, Katriina 
White, and Kevin Nguyen of CBRE. (Ms. Haucke, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Grose, 
Ms. White, and Mr. Nguyen are referred to herein as the ``Independent 
Appraisers.'') Ms. Haucke, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Grose, and Mr. Nguyen are 
Certified General Real Estate Appraisers in the areas where the Parcels 
are located, and they are all Members of the Appraisal Institute. Ms. 
White is a Registered Real Estate Appraiser Trainee in the State of 
Washington. The Independent Appraisers also have experience in 
appraising residential properties, vacant land, and commercial 
properties.
    Pursuant to its Appraisal Engagement Letter, CBRE was retained to 
perform, among other things, the following tasks, on behalf of the 
Plan: (a) Provide a fair market valuation of the Parcels using 
commercially acceptable methods of valuation for unrelated third party 
transactions; (b) explain whether or not, in the Independent 
Appraisers' opinion, the Plan has received adequate consideration from 
the Leases; and (c) opine on whether the proper CPI was used for the 
rent increases for each Parcel. The Applicant represents that the 
appraisal work completed by CBRE produced fees from Les Schwab to CBRE 
of $98,250 in 2016 and $0.00 in 2017. According to CBRE's 2017 10K 
filing, its 2016 gross revenue was $13.09 billion and its 2017 gross 
revenue was $14.21 billion. As such, CBRE's revenue from the Les Schwab 
appraisal work was less than 2% of its revenue for 2016 and 2017.

The Independent Appraisals

    31. In valuing the Parcels, the Independent Appraisers applied the 
Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach to 
valuation. As represented by the Independent Appraisers, the Sales 
Comparison Approach is typically used for retail sites that are 
feasible for either immediate or near-term development. The Income 
Capitalization Approach, according to the Independent Appraisers, 
reflects the property's income-producing capabilities, and is based on 
the assumption that value is created by the expectation of benefits to 
be derived in the future. The Independent Appraisers did not use the 
Cost Approach to valuation because they did not consider this 
methodology to be applicable in the estimation of market value due to 
age of the improvements and lack of depreciation data for the Parcels.
    a. The Aloha Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers used the 
Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach 
methodologies in determining the fair market value of the Aloha Parcel. 
Based on the Sales Comparison Approach, the Independent Appraisers 
evaluated eight properties, which included fee simple or leased fee 
sales or listings of comparable properties. The Independent Appraisers 
determined that the fee simple sales comparables indicated an adjusted 
range of $131 per square foot to $149 per square foot, at an average of 
$136 per square foot. According to the Independent Appraisers, the 
Sales Comparison Approach yielded a value of $135 per square foot, 
which when multiplied by the actual square footage of the Aloha Parcel 
(16,700 square feet), equaled a fair market value of $2,250,000 for the 
Aloha Parcel as of April 1, 2016.
    In employing the Income Capitalization Approach, the Independent 
Appraisers noted that there

[[Page 67661]]

were no rents of buildings or facilities similar to the subject 
property. Therefore, the Independent Appraisers expanded their search 
for comparable rental properties, regionally, and they evaluated six 
rental property comparables. After reviewing the rental incomes and 
operating expenses of these properties, the Independent Appraisers 
determined that, under the Income Capitalization Approach, the 
Independent Appraisers concluded that the fair market value of the 
Aloha Parcel was $129 per square foot, or $2,150,721, rounded to 
$2,150,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    The Independent Appraisers determined that the Sales Comparison 
Approach should be given primary consideration in the reconciliation 
process. As such, the Independent Appraisers determined the fair market 
value of the Aloha Parcel as of April 1, 2016, was $2,250,000.
    b. The Boise Broadway Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
used the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Boise Broadway Parcel. 
The Independent Appraisers evaluated six prior sales and one pending 
sale. Based on the Sales Comparison Approach and evaluating land sale 
comparables, the Independent Appraisers derived a fair market value for 
the Boise Broadway Parcel of $13 per square foot, which when multiplied 
by the actual square footage of the Boise Broadway Parcel (72,310 
square feet) equaled a fair market value of $940,000 as of April 1, 
2016.
    c. The Boise State Street Parcel Appraisal. The Boise State Street 
Appraisal provides that the Independent Appraisers employed the Sales 
Comparison Approach and Income Capitalization Approach to value the 
Boise State Street Parcel. In using the Sales Comparison Approach, the 
Independent Appraisers evaluated two prior fee simple sales, two 
pending fee simple sales, two prior leased fee sales, and two pending 
leased fee sales. The Independent Appraisers determined that, based on 
the Sales Comparison Approach, evaluating the land sale comparables 
derived a fair market value for the Boise State Street Parcel of 
$2,100,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    In using the Income Capitalization Approach, the Independent 
Appraisers evaluated five lease comparables and one comparable listing 
for a lease. After reviewing the rental incomes and operating expenses 
of the six comparables, the Appraiser determined that, under the Income 
Capitalization Approach, the fair market value of the Boise State 
Street Parcel is $2,060,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    The Independent Appraisers determined that both methodologies 
should be given equal emphasis, and determined the fair market value of 
the Boise State Street Parcel as of April 1, 2016, to be $2,090,000.
    d. The Centralia Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers used 
the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Centralia Parcel. The 
Independent Appraisers evaluated three prior sales and one listing. The 
Independent Appraisers determined that, based on the Sales Comparison 
Approach, evaluating the land sale comparables derived a fair market 
value for the Centralia Parcel of $8.01 per square foot, which when 
multiplied by the actual square footage of the Centralia Parcel (46,200 
square feet) equaled a fair market value of $370,000, as of April 1, 
2016.
    e. The Chehalis Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
employed the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Capitalization 
Approach to value the Chehalis Parcel. In using the Sales Comparison 
Approach, the Independent Appraisers evaluated five prior sales and one 
pending sale, and determined the fair market value of the Chehalis 
Parcel to be $1,150,000, as of April 1, 2016.
    In using the Income Capitalization Approach, the Independent 
Appraisers evaluated five lease comparables. After reviewing the rental 
incomes and operating expenses of the five comparables, the Independent 
Appraisers determined the fair market value of the Chehalis Parcel to 
be $1,100,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    The Independent Appraisers noted that market participants are 
analyzing properties based on their income generating capability. As 
such, the income capitalization approach was given primary emphasis in 
the final value estimate. Thus, based on the Income Capitalization 
Approach, the Independent Appraisers determined the fair market value 
of the Chehalis Parcel was $1,100,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    f. The Ellensburg Parcels Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
employed the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Capitalization 
Approach to value the Ellensburg Parcels. In using the Sales Comparison 
Approach, the Independent Appraisers evaluated five prior sales and one 
sale listing. The Independent Appraisers determined that evaluating the 
land sale comparables derived a fair market value after adjustments for 
the Ellensburg Parcels of $1,080,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    In using the Income Capitalization Approach, the Independent 
Appraisers evaluated six lease comparables. After reviewing the rental 
incomes and operating expenses of the six comparables, the Independent 
Appraisers determined that, under the Income Capitalization Approach, 
the fair market value of the Ellensburg Parcels was $1,096,990, rounded 
to $1,100,000, as of April 1, 2016.
    The Independent Appraisers noted that market participants were 
analyzing properties based on their income-generating capability. As 
such, the Income Capitalization Approach was given primary emphasis in 
the final value estimate. Thus, based on the Income Capitalization 
Approach, the Independent Appraisers determined the fair market value 
of the Ellensburg Parcels was $1,100,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    g. The Independence Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
employed the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Capitalization 
Approach to value the Independence Parcel. In using the Sales 
Comparison Approach, the Independent Appraisers evaluated four prior 
fee simple sales and four prior leased fee sales of comparable parcels. 
The Independent Appraisers calculated the value of the Independence 
Parcel to be $990,000, as of April 1, 2016.
    In using the Income Capitalization Approach, the Independent 
Appraisers evaluated six lease comparables. After reviewing the rental 
incomes and operating expenses of the six comparables, the Independent 
Appraisers determined that, under the Income Capitalization Approach, 
the fair market value of the Independence Parcel was $918,034 as of 
April 1, 2016 ($920,000, if rounded).
    After giving more weight to the Sales Comparison Approach, the 
Independent Appraisers concluded that the Independence Parcel had a 
fair market value of $990,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    h. The Lakewood Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
employed the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Lakewood Parcel. 
They valued Parcels A and B and Parcels C and D, comprising the 
Lakewood Parcel, using different comparables. With respect to Parcels A 
and B, the Independent Appraisers evaluated four comparable land sales 
and one land sale listing that was current at the time of the 
valuation. The Independent Appraisers determined that the fair market 
value for Parcels A and B was $600,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    With respect to the valuation of Parcels C and D, the Independent 
Appraisers evaluated four comparable land sales and one land sale 
listing that

[[Page 67662]]

was current at the time of the valuation. The Independent Appraisers 
determined that the fair market values of Parcel C and Parcel D were 
$21,000 and $44,000, respectively, as of April 1, 2016.
    i. The Longview Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers used 
the Sales Comparison Approach and Income Capitalization Approach to 
value the Longview Parcel. In using the Sales Comparison Approach, the 
Independent Appraisers evaluated sales of eight comparable properties, 
four representing fee simple sales, and four representing leased fee 
sales, and determined that the fair market value of the Longview Parcel 
was $2,385,000, rounded to $2,400,000, as of April 1, 2016.
    Using the Income Capitalization Approach, the Independent 
Appraisers evaluated six lease comparables. After reviewing the rental 
incomes and operating expenses of the six comparables, the Independent 
Appraisers determined that, under the Income Capitalization Approach, 
the fair market value of the Longview Parcel was $2,373,521, rounded to 
$2,370,000, as of April 1, 2016.
    After giving more weight to the Income Capitalization Approach, the 
Independent Appraisers concluded that the Independence Parcel had a 
fair market value of $2,385,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    j. The Marysville Parcels Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
valued the Marysville Parcel using the Sales Comparison Approach. With 
respect to both Marysville Parcels A and B, the Independent Appraisers 
evaluated four similar sale-listings in the area and determined that 
the fair market values of Marysville Parcel A and Parcel B were 
$740,000 and $265,000, respectively, as of April 1, 2016.
    k. The North Bend Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
valued the North Bend Parcel using the Sales Comparison Approach. The 
Independent Appraisers evaluated four prior sales. The Appraisers 
determined that the fair market value of the North Bend Parcel was 
$1,220,000, as of April 1, 2016.
    l. The Oregon City Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
used the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Oregon City Parcel. The 
Independent Appraisers evaluated two prior sales, one pending sale of a 
single parcel, and one pending sale of two adjacent parcels. The 
Appraisers determined that the fair market value of the Oregon City 
Parcel was $600,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    m. The Pullman Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers used 
the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Pullman Parcel. The 
Independent Appraiser evaluated six prior land sales of similar 
parcels, based on zoning and intended uses. The Independent determined 
that the fair market value of the Pullman Parcel was $575,000 as of 
April 1, 2016.
    n. The Silverton Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers 
valued the Silverton Parcel using the Sales Comparison Approach and the 
Income Capitalization Approach. In using the Sales Comparison Approach, 
the Independent Appraisers evaluated sales of eight comparable 
properties, four representing fee simple sales, and four representing 
leased fee sales. The Independent Appraisers determined the fair market 
value of the Silverton Parcel was $1,451,000, rounded to $1,450,000, as 
of April 1, 2016.
    Using the Income Capitalization Approach, the Independent 
Appraisers evaluated six lease comparables. After reviewing the rental 
incomes and operating expenses of the six comparables, the Independent 
Appraisers determined that the fair market value of the Silverton 
Parcel was $1,375,895, rounded to $1,380,000, as of April 1, 2016.
    After giving more weight to the Income Capitalization Approach, the 
Independent Appraisers concluded that the Silverton Parcel had a fair 
market value of $1,415,000 as of April 1, 2016.
    o. The Snohomish Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers used 
the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Snohomish Parcel. The 
Independent Appraisers evaluated four prior land sales of similar 
parcels, based on zoning and intended uses. The Independent Appraisers 
determined that the fair market value of the Snohomish Parcel was 
$590,000, rounded, as of April 1, 2016.
    p. The Spanaway Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers valued 
the Spanaway Parcel using the Sales Comparison Approach. The 
Independent Appraisers evaluated five similar sale-listings in the 
area. The Independent Appraisers determined the fair market value of 
the Spanaway Parcel to be approximately $540,000, rounded, as of April 
1, 2016.
    q. The Spokane Parcel Appraisal. The Independent Appraisers used 
the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Spokane Parcel. The 
Independent Appraisers evaluated five prior land sales of similar 
parcels, based on zoning and intended uses. The Independent Appraisers 
determined the fair market value of the Spokane Parcel to be $725,000, 
rounded, as of April 1, 2016.
    r. The Vancouver Andresen Parcel Appraisal. The Independent 
Appraisers valued the Vancouver Andresen Parcel using the Sales 
Comparison Approach. The Independent Appraisers evaluated five similar 
sale-listings in the area, which included two under contract/offer 
sales. The Independent Appraisers determined the fair market value of 
the Vancouver Andresen Parcel to be $450,000, rounded, as of April 1, 
2016.
    s. The Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel Appraisal. The Independent 
Appraisers used the Sales Comparison Approach to value the Vancouver 
Cascade Park Parcel. The Independent Appraisers evaluated three prior 
sales and two pending sales. The Independent Appraisers determined the 
fair market value of the Vancouver Cascade Park Parcel to be $390,000 
as of April 1, 2016.

Analysis

    31. The Applicant represents that the statutory exemption under 
ERISA section 408(e) is not available for the proposed transactions due 
to the application of section 408(d)(l)(C) of the Act, which provides 
that the statutory exemption under section 408(e) of the Act will not 
apply to a transaction in which a plan sells any property to a 
corporation in which an owner-employee with respect to the plan owns, 
directly or indirectly, 50% or more of the total combined voting power 
of all classes of stock entitled to vote or 50% or more of the total 
value of shares of all classes of stock of the corporation.
    The Applicant notes that section 408(d)(2)(A) of the Act provides 
that a ``shareholder-employee'' will be treated as an owner-employee. 
Further, the Applicant states that section 408(d)(3) of the Act 
provides that a ``shareholder-employee'' is an employee or officer of 
an ``S'' corporation who owns more than 5% of the outstanding stock of 
the corporation on any day during the taxable year of such corporation. 
According to the Applicant, both Julie Waibel and Leslie Tuftin own 
more than 5% of S corporations that are within the various controlled 
groups with employees that participate in the Plan. As such, due to 
their ownership interest in these S corporations, the Applicant asserts 
that Ms. Waibel and Ms. Tuftin are owner-employees with respect to the 
Plan.
    The Applicant represents that because Ms. Waibel and Ms. Tuftin are 
owner-employees, and each is deemed to own 50% or more of the total 
combined voting power of all classes of the S corporations' stock 
entitled to vote,

[[Page 67663]]

section 408(d)(l)(C) of the Act precludes the reliance upon section 
408(e) of the Act with respect to the Sales.
    Section 406(a)(l)(A) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary with respect 
to a plan from causing the plan to engage in a transaction if he or she 
knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or 
indirect sale, exchange, or lease of any property between the plan and 
a party in interest. Therefore, the proposed transactions would 
constitute prohibited transactions under section 406(a)(l)(A) of the 
Act because the Plan would be selling real property to parties in 
interest and disqualified persons with respect to the Plan.
    Section 406(a)(l)(D) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary with respect 
to a plan to cause the plan to engage in a transaction if the fiduciary 
knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or 
indirect transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a party in 
interest, of any asset of the plan. The Applicant represents that the 
proposed transactions would violate section 406(a)(l)(D) of the Act 
because the Plan will transfer Plan assets to parties in interest and 
disqualified persons with respect to the Plan.
    In addition, section 406(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary 
from dealing with the assets of a plan in his own interest or for his 
own account. Section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary, with 
respect to a plan, from acting in a transaction involving the plan on 
behalf of a party whose interests are adverse to those of the plan or 
of its participants and beneficiaries. As described above, the Trustees 
and the Committee are fiduciaries of the Plan. The Trustees are also 
comprised of certain executive officers of Les Schwab, including 
officers of the Warehouse Center, Les Schwab Washington, Les Schwab 
Idaho, and Les Schwab Portland, and are appointed by the Chief 
Executive Officer of the Warehouse Center, the Plan sponsor.
    The proposed Sales of the Parcels by the Plan to Les Schwab would 
involve a violation of section 406(b)(1) of the Act because Les Schwab, 
as a Plan fiduciary, would be dealing with the assets of the Plan for 
its own interest or own account. Les Schwab, as a Plan fiduciary, in 
effecting the Sales to itself, is acting on behalf of itself and of the 
Plan in violation of section 406(b)(2) of the Act.

Statutory Findings

    32. The Department has tentatively determined that the requested 
exemption is administratively feasible because: (a) The Sales are one-
time transactions for cash; and (b) the price paid by Les Schwab to the 
Plan for each Parcel will be no less than the fair market value of each 
Parcel (exclusive of the buildings or other improvements paid for by 
Les Schwab, to which Les Schwab retains title), as determined by the 
Independent Appraisers in separate Independent Appraisals that are 
updated on the date of each Sale.
    The Department has tentatively determined that the proposed 
exemption is in the interest of the Plan because: (a) The Sales will 
allow the Plan to diversify its holdings and invest the proceeds from 
the Sales in more productive investments; (b) the Plan will not incur 
any transaction costs in connection with such Sales; (c) the Sales will 
not be subject to any financing contingencies because Les Schwab will 
make a one-time, lump-sum, cash payment on the closing date for each 
respective Parcel; and (d) the Sales will eliminate ongoing appraisal 
fees, administrative costs, and legal responsibilities that are 
associated with the Plan's continuing ownership of the Parcels.
    The Department has tentatively determined that the proposed 
exemption is protective of the participants and beneficiaries because 
the Independent Fiduciary will represent the interests of the Plan's 
participants and beneficiaries with respect to: (a) The decision to 
sell the Parcels to the Applicant; (b) the terms and execution of the 
Sales; and (c) the selection of the Independent Appraiser. In addition, 
the Applicant states that the Independent Fiduciary will determine 
whether the transactions are prudent and in the best interest of the 
participants and beneficiaries, including whether or not the terms and 
conditions of the Sales are equivalent to an arm's-length transaction 
with an unrelated party. Finally, the Applicant states that the 
Independent Appraisers will appraise the fair market value of the 
Parcels as of the transaction date and ensure that the Plan receives 
adequate consideration, based on appropriate appraisal methodologies 
used by the Independent Appraisers in Independent Appraisals that will 
be updated on the date of each Sale.

Summary

    33. In summary, the Department has tentatively determined that the 
relief sought by the Applicant satisfies the statutory requirements for 
an exemption under section 408(a) of ERISA, provided that the 
conditions described below are satisfied.

Proposed Exemption

Section I. Covered Transactions

    If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 
406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act, and the 
sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, 
by reason of sections 4975(c)(1)(A), 4975(c)(1)(D) and 4975(c)(1)(E) of 
the Code, shall not apply to the sales (the Sales) by the Les Schwab 
Profit Sharing Retirement Plan (the Plan) of the following parcels of 
real property (each, a ``Parcel'' and collectively, the ``Parcels'') to 
the Applicant:
    (a) The Parcel located at 19100 SW Shaw Street, Aloha, Oregon;
    (b) The Parcel located at 2045 Broadway Avenue, Boise, Idaho;
    (c) The Parcel located at 6520 W State Street, Boise, Idaho;
    (d) The Parcel located at 1211 Harrison Avenue, Centralia, 
Washington;
    (e) The Parcel located at 36 N Market Boulevard, Chehalis, 
Washington;
    (f) The Parcels located at 1206 Canyon Road, Ellensburg, 
Washington;
    (g) The Parcel located at 1710 Monmouth Avenue, Independence, 
Oregon;
    (h) The Parcel located at 3809 Steilacoom Boulevard SW, Lakewood, 
Washington;
    (i) The Parcel located at 1420 Industrial Way, Longview, 
Washington;
    (j) The Parcel located at 8405 State Avenue, Marysville, 
Washington;
    (k) The Parcel located at 610 E. North Bend Way, North Bend, 
Washington;
    (l) The Parcel located at 1625 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, 
Oregon;
    (m) The Parcel located at 160 SE Bishop Boulevard, Pullman, 
Washington;
    (n) The Parcel located at 911 N 1st Street, Silverton, Oregon;
    (o) The Parcel located at 711 Avenue D, Snohomish, Washington;
    (p) The Parcel located at 16819 Pacific Avenue S, Spanaway, 
Washington;
    (q) The Parcel located at 8103 N Division Street, Spokane, 
Washington;
    (r) The Parcel located at 2420 NE Andresen Road, Vancouver, 
Washington; and
    (s) The Parcel located at 216 SE 118th Avenue, Vancouver, 
Washington; where the Applicant is a party in interest with respect to 
the Plan, provided that the conditions set forth in Section II of this 
proposed exemption are met.

Section II. General Conditions

    (a) The price paid by Les Schwab to the Plan for each Parcel is no 
less than the fair market value of each Parcel

[[Page 67664]]

(exclusive of the buildings or other improvements paid for by Les 
Schwab, to which Les Schwab retains title), as determined by qualified 
independent appraisers (the Independent Appraisers), working for CBRE, 
Inc., in separate appraisal reports (the Independent Appraisals) that 
are updated on the date of each Sale.
    (b) Each Sale is a one-time transaction for cash.
    (c) The Plan does not pay any costs, including brokerage 
commissions, fees, appraisal costs, or any other expenses associated 
with each Sale.
    (d) The Independent Appraisers determine the fair market value of 
their assigned Parcel, on the date of the Sale, using commercially 
accepted methods of valuation for unrelated third-party transactions, 
taking into account the following considerations:
    (1) The fact that a lease between Les Schwab and the Plan is a 
ground lease and not a standard commercial lease;
    (2) The assemblage value of the Parcel, where applicable;
    (3) Any special or unique value the Parcel holds for Les Schwab; 
and
    (4) Any instructions from the qualified independent fiduciary (the 
Independent Fiduciary) regarding the terms of the Sale, including the 
extent to which the Independent Appraiser should consider the effect 
that Les Schwab's option to purchase a Parcel would have on the fair 
market value of the Parcel.
    (e) The Independent Fiduciary represents the interests of the Plan 
with respect to each Sale, and in doing so:
    (1) Determines that it is prudent to go forward with each Sale;
    (2) Approves the terms and conditions of each Sale;
    (3) Reviews and approves the methodology used by the Independent 
Appraiser and ensures that such methodology is properly applied in 
determining the Parcel's fair market value on the date of each Sale;
    (4) Reviews and approves the determination of the purchase price; 
and
    (5) Monitors each Sale throughout its duration on behalf of the 
Plan for compliance with the general terms of the transaction and with 
the conditions of this exemption, if granted, and takes any appropriate 
actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan and its participants and 
beneficiaries.
    (f) The terms and conditions of each Sale are at least as favorable 
to the Plan as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an 
unrelated party.

Notice to Interested Parties

    The persons who may be interested in the publication in the Federal 
Register of the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice) include all 
individuals who are participants and beneficiaries in the Plan. It is 
represented that all such interested persons will be notified of the 
publication of the Notice by first class mail to each such interested 
person's last known address within fifteen (15) days of publication of 
the Notice in the Federal Register. Such mailing will contain a copy of 
the Notice, as it appears in the Federal Register on the date of 
publication, plus a copy of the Supplemental Statement, as required, 
pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(a)(2), which will advise all interested 
persons of their right to comment on and/or to request a hearing. All 
written comments or hearing requests must be received by the Department 
from interested persons within forty-five (45) days of the publication 
of this proposed exemption in the Federal Register.
    All comments will be made available to the public.
    Warning: If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, 
but DO NOT submit information that you consider to be confidential, or 
otherwise protected (such as Social Security number or an unlisted 
phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want 
publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the internet and can 
be retrieved by most internet search engines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Ness of the Department, 
telephone (202) 693-8561. (This is not a toll-free number.)

Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan, (the Plan or the 
Applicant), Located in Oklahoma City, OK, [Application No. D-11918].

Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the 
authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and section 
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth 
in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 46637, 66644, October 27, 2011). 
If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 
406(a)(2),and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act shall not apply, effective August 
1, 2016 through April 20, 2017, to: (1) The acquisition by participant 
accounts in the Plan (the Plan Accounts) of warrants (the Warrants) 
issued by Seventy Seven Energy, Inc. (SSE), the Plan sponsor, in 
connection with SSE's bankruptcy; and (2) the holding of the Warrants 
by the Plan, provided that certain conditions set forth below are met.

Summary of Facts and Representations

Background

    1. SSE (or the Applicant) is an Oklahoma-based company that offers 
drilling, pressure-pumping, oilfield rental tools and trucking 
services. On June 30, 2014, SSE became an independent, publicly-traded 
company by separating from Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK) in a 
series of transactions (the Spin-Off). Prior to the Spin-Off, SSE was 
an Oklahoma limited liability company operating under the name 
``Chesapeake Oilfield Operating, L.L.C.'' (COO), and an indirect, 
wholly-owned subsidiary of CHK. As a result of the Spin-Off, 
approximately 5,200 employees of COO and its subsidiaries became 
employees of SSE.
    2. The Plan, which provides for participant-directed investments, 
is a defined contribution plan that was created by SSE for the 
exclusive benefit of SSE employee-participants and their beneficiaries, 
as well as for SSE affiliates that have adopted the Plan. The Plan is 
intended to qualify under sections 401(a), 401(k) and 4975(e)(7) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). The trust created 
under the Plan is intended to be exempt under section 501(a) of the 
Code.
    The Plan was established, effective July 1, 2014, as the result of 
a spin-off from the Chesapeake Energy Corporation Savings and Incentive 
Stock Bonus Plan (the CHK Plan.) At that time, $196,210,229 in assets 
was transferred from the CHK Plan to the Plan. As of August 1, 2016, 
the Plan had total assets of approximately $72,786,235 and 2,450 
participants. On July 31, 2016, the Plan held 3,571,255 shares of SSE 
common stock (Old SSE Common Stock) that was valued at $393,012.66, and 
represented approximately 0.54% of the fair market value of the assets 
of the Plan. The shares of Old SSE Common Stock were allocated to the 
individual accounts (Plan Accounts) of 2,228 participants and held in a 
stock fund (the Stock Fund) within the Plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Applicant represents that after 2015, SSE ceased making 
employer matching contributions to the Plan of Old SSE Common Stock 
due to the financial condition of SSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan's directed trustee (the Trustee) and recordkeeper is 
Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Company of Wilmington, Delaware, 
which conducts business under the trade name ``Principal Trust 
Company.''
    3. SSE's Administrative Committee formerly served as the 
administrator and

[[Page 67665]]

named fiduciary for the Plan. However, in connection with the merger 
(the Merger) of SSE with Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. (Patterson-UTI) and 
Pyramid Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub), effective as of April 20, 2017, 
the Plan administrator and named fiduciary was changed to the Seventy 
Seven Energy LLC 401(k) Plan Committee (the Committee).

The Reorganization Plan

    4. On May 9, 2016, SSE and all of its wholly-owned subsidiaries 
entered into an Amended and Restated Restructuring Support Agreement 
with certain lenders, which set forth a ``pre-packaged'' or pre-
negotiated plan of reorganization (the Reorganization Plan). Also, on 
this date, SSE started soliciting creditors.
    On May 12, 2016, the Reorganization Plan was revised and executed 
to add certain noteholders as signatories and to provide the 
noteholders with nominal concessions. On June 7, 2016, the revised 
Reorganization Plan, was filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 
District Court of Delaware (the Bankruptcy Court), under Chapter 11 of 
Title I of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the Bankruptcy Code).\11\ After 
the Reorganization Plan was accepted by a sufficient number of 
creditors and was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court during the Chapter 
11 cases, a reorganized SSE emerged from bankruptcy on August 1, 2016 
(the Emergence Date).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Applicant represents that none of the changes between 
the May 9, 2016 and May 12, 2016 versions of the Reorganization Plan 
had any effect on the terms of the Warrants.
    \12\ The Applicant represents that the Old SSE Common Stock was 
able to be traded until the Emergence Date. In addition, the 
Applicant confirms that the Trustee and Plan participants were able 
to trade the Old SSE Common Stock in their accounts up until the 
Emergence Date when the stock was replaced by the Warrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Warrants

    5. On the Emergence Date, the Warrants were issued to SSE 
shareholders, including the Plan Accounts, in accordance with the 
Reorganization Plan by Computershare Inc. (Computershare), a Delaware 
corporation, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Computershare Trust 
Company, N.A., a federally-chartered trust company (CTS), both of which 
served in the capacity as the ``Warrant Agent.'' (Neither Computershare 
nor CTS is affiliated with SSE.)
    The Warrants were: (a) Registered pursuant to Section 12(g) the 
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), and the rules 
and regulations promulgated thereunder; and (b) exempt from 
registration under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 
pursuant to Section 1145 of the Bankruptcy Code.
    Neither the Trustee nor SSE's Administrative Committee had any 
involvement with the bankruptcy proceedings or the decision to issue 
the 5-year Warrants (the Series B Warrants) and the 7-year warrants 
(the Series C Warrants) to shareholders in connection with the 
emergence of SSE from bankruptcy. The Plan was in the same position as 
the other holders of Old SSE Common Stock. Thus the Warrants were 
issued to the Plan Accounts on the same basis that they were issued to 
all other shareholders of Old SSE Common Stock.
    6. Each shareholder of Old SSE Common Stock received 0.05004 5-Year 
Warrants (the Series B Warrants) and 0.05560 7-Year Warrants (the 
Series C Warrants), to replace their shares of Old SSE Common Stock. 
Accordingly, 2,875,814 Series B Warrants and 3,195,352 Series C 
Warrants were distributed to all shareholders of Old SSE Common Stock 
as of the Emergence Date, with 178,703 of the Series B Warrants and 
198,560 of the Series C Warrants received by the Plan with respect to 
2,230 Plan participants. The Trustee allocated the Warrants to the Plan 
Accounts based upon the share positions held by the Accounts of Old SSE 
Common Stock within the Stock Fund. The Applicant states that Plan 
participants were not allowed by the Trustee to purchase additional 
Warrants, as there was no market for the Warrants.
    Under the Warrant Agreement, each shareholder of Old SSE Common 
Stock, including the Plan's Stock Fund, received a pro rata share of 
Series B Warrants and Series C Warrants to replace Old SSE Common Stock 
prior to the Emergence Date. The Warrants could be exercised for post-
emergence common stock of SSE (New SSE Common Stock). Based on the 
number of Warrants issued by the reorganized SSE, each Series B Warrant 
and each Series C Warrant could be exercised for one share of New SSE 
Common Stock, having a par value $0.01 per share, at an exercise price 
of $69.08 per share for each Series B Warrant, and $86.93 per share for 
each Series C Warrant. The Warrants could be exercised during the 
period beginning on the date of the Warrant Agreement and ending on the 
five-year or seven-year anniversary of the date of the Warrant 
Agreement.
    7. Upon the exercise of a Warrant, SSE would not be required to 
issue any fractional shares of New SSE Common Stock. Instead, SSE would 
be required to round up to the nearest whole share the number of shares 
of New SSE Common Stock designated in the applicable Exercise Notice. 
The Warrant Agreement provided that payment of the exercise price could 
be made at the option of the holder of the Warrants either: (a) Through 
a net share settlement; or (b) by paying or submitting payment for the 
exercise price.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Following the Emergence Date, the Applicant states that SSE 
and the Trustee were working together to set up a system and 
procedures to facilitate the exercise or sale of the Warrants. 
However, the Applicant states that these procedures were not 
finalized prior to the Merger of SSE with Patterson-UTI. The 
Applicant states that upon the closing of the Merger on April 20, 
2017 (the Merger Date), all of the Warrants were cancelled, 
rendering the completion of the system and procedures for exercising 
and/or selling the Warrants moot. However, the Applicant states that 
it is its understanding that at all times during the period that the 
Warrants were held by the Plan (from the Emergence Date to the 
Merger Date), both classes of Warrants (the Series B Warrants and 
the Series C Warrants) held by the Plan were underwater. Thus, the 
Applicant states that none of the Warrants would have been exercised 
from a practical standpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. According to the Applicant, the Warrants could be sold, 
assigned, transferred, pledged, encumbered, or in any other manner 
transferred or disposed of, in whole or in party in accordance with the 
terms of the Warrant Agreement and all applicable laws. In this regard, 
the Applicant represents that the Plan had the right to sell the 
Warrants allocated to the Plan Accounts at any time prior to the 
Warrants' expiration date, in the same manner as other holders of the 
Warrants.
    All decisions regarding the exercise or sale of the Warrants 
acquired by the Plan Accounts in connection with the Reorganization 
Plan could be made only by the individual Plan participants in whose 
Accounts the Warrants were allocated, in accordance with the terms of 
the Warrant Agreement, as well as in accordance with the respective 
provisions of the Plan and the regulations pertaining to the 
individually-directed investment of such accounts. According to the 
Applicant, if no action was taken by a Plan participant to exercise or 
sell the Warrants, then the Warrants would expire at the end of their 
respective term.
    9. The Warrants were described to Plan participants in frequently-
asked questions (FAQs) regarding the Reorganization Plan, which the 
Applicant states were posted to SSE's website on or about May 18, 2016, 
and taken down from the website on or before October 1, 2016. The 
Applicant represents that SSE's CEO sent an initial

[[Page 67666]]

email to all employees with a link to the FAQs on or about May 18, 
2016, followed by a second email with a link to updated FAQs on or 
about August 1, 2016.
    According to the Applicant, as of October 17, 2016, New SSE Common 
Stock was not traded on a national securities exchange, but was instead 
traded over-the-counter. Although the Bankruptcy Court authorized 
22,000,000 shares of New SSE Common Stock to be issued under the 
Reorganization Plan, former shareholders of Old SSE Common Stock 
received Warrants, but they did not receive any shares of New SSE 
Common Stock.
    The Applicant also represents that the value of SSE as of the 
Emergence Date was anticipated to be $345,000,000. However, based on 
this projected market value, the Applicant states that the imputed fair 
market value per share of New SSE Common Stock was only approximately 
$15.68 per share.\14\ Therefore, the Applicant represents that as of 
October 17, 2016, the Warrants were ``underwater.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Applicant states that New SSE Common Stock was not 
traded on an exchange on October 17, 2016 and so the Applicant has 
no market price for the stock on that date. The Applicant is not 
aware that a specific value was calculated for SSE as of the 
Emergence Date. As a result, the Applicant provided an imputed value 
based on the anticipated value of SSE as of the Emergence Date, 
which was intended to show that the warrants were underwater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Merger

    10. On December 12, 2016, SSE entered into an Agreement and Plan of 
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Patterson-UTI and Merger Sub. The 
Merger was effective on April 20, 2017 (the Merger Date). Pursuant to 
the Merger Agreement, the Warrants were treated in accordance with the 
terms of the Warrant Agreement. Holders of the Warrants were provided a 
notice of the merger at least fifteen days prior to the effective time 
of the Merger. Any Warrants that were not exercised immediately prior 
to the effective time of the Merger expired, and all rights of the 
Warrant holders ceased.

The Merger's Effect on the Warrants

    11. Because the Warrants were underwater, all Warrants expired 
(unexercised) immediately prior to the Merger Date. The Applicant 
represents that when the Committee decided to keep New SSE Common Stock 
as an investment option under the Plan, knowing that New SSE Common 
Stock would be converted into Warrants, the Committee was of the view 
that this was in the participants' interest as it potentially allowed 
the participants to participate in the appreciation of New SSE Common 
Stock. While ultimately this potential was not realized, the Applicant 
does not believe that this result should be considered in hindsight.
    In this regard, the Applicant represents that SSE and the Trustee 
set up a system and procedures to facilitate the exercise of the 
Warrants or the sale of the Warrants (if the Warrants had become listed 
on a market, which they were not). However, these plans were not 
finalized prior to the announcement of the Merger with Patterson-UTI 
because, upon closing of the Merger on April 20, 2017, the Warrants 
were cancelled.

Merger-Related Litigation

    12. According to the Applicant, several SSE shareholder and Warrant 
holder plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against SSE in connection 
with the Merger.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Maria Comeaux et al. v. Seventy Seven Energy, Inc. et 
al., Case No. CIV-5:17-191M, U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of Oklahoma; Garud Sudarsan et al. v. Seventy Seven Energy, 
Inc. et al. Case No. 1:17-cv-02342, U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of New York; Mainard Gael et al. v. Seventy Seven 
Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 2017-0266, Court of Chancery of the 
State of Delaware; Louis Scarantino et al. v. Seventy Seven Energy, 
Inc. et al., Case No. 2017-0278, Court of Chancery of the State of 
Delaware; and, Kathleen J. Myers v. Administrative Committee, 
Seventy Seven Energy, Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan, et al., Case 
No. CIV-17-200-D, United States District Court for the Western 
District of Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard,

    <bullet> On February 22, 2017, an SSE shareholder challenged the 
disclosures made in connection with the Merger against SSE and the 
members of SSE's Board of Directors (the Board) in the United States 
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the Oklahoma 
District Court), and alleged inadequacies in the Merger price, the 
process leading up to it, and claimed that the Joint Proxy 
Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the merger failed to 
disclose certain material information. Based on these allegations, 
the shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Merger 
unless and until SSE disclosed the allegedly omitted material 
information summarized above. On February 26, 2018, the Oklahoma 
District Court entered an order awarding the shareholder's counsel 
$128,354.50 in attorneys' fees and expenses. The parties 
subsequently settled for an amount less than the Oklahoma District 
Court's award.
    <bullet> On March 31, 2017, a shareholder of Series B and Series 
C Warrants, filed a class action lawsuit against SSE, Patterson-UTI 
and Merger Sub in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District 
of New York (the New York District Court), alleging: (a) That SSE 
had breached the Warrant Agreement; and (b) tortious interference 
with the Warrant Agreement by Patterson-UTI and Merger Sub. Based on 
these allegations, the Warrant holder sought to enjoin the 
cancelation of SSE's Series A, Series B, and Series C Warrants in 
connection with the proposed Merger on February 6, 2018. The New 
York District Court dismissed the Warrant holder's complaint and 
struck the Warrant holder's amended complaint. On March 6, 2018, 
Warrant holder filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal. According 
to the Applicant, the parties have reached an agreement to resolve 
the matter and are working to prepare and finalize a formal 
settlement agreement.
    <bullet> On April 7, 2017, an SSE shareholder filed a class 
action lawsuit challenging the disclosures made in connection with 
the Merger against SSE and the members of SSE's Board. The lawsuit 
in was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the 
Delaware Chancery Court), and alleged that SSE's Board had breached 
its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose in the Joint Proxy 
Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the merger certain 
material information. Based on these allegations, the Warrant holder 
sought to enjoin damages if the Merger was consummated. On July 20, 
2017, the Warrant holder filed a notice and proposed order 
voluntarily dismissing the action, and on July 21, 2017, the 
Delaware Chancery Court signed the order dismissing the action.
    <bullet> On April 10, 2017, an SSE shareholder filed a class 
action lawsuit, challenging the disclosures made in connection with 
the Merger against SSE, the members of SSE's Board, Patterson-UTI, 
and Merger Sub in the Delaware Chancery Court. On July 20, 2017, the 
shareholder filed a notice and proposed order voluntarily dismissing 
the action, and on July 21, 2017, the Delaware Chancery Court 
dismissed the action.
    <bullet> On February 24, 2017, an SSE shareholder filed a class 
action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others, alleging that the 
Plan's investment in, or retention of, a stock fund invested in CHK 
stock amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. On June 
26, 2017, defendants, representing SSE's Administrative Committee 
and the Trustee filed respective motions to dismiss the 
shareholder's complaint for failure to state a claim and the motions 
have been fully briefed. As of this time, the parties are awaiting 
the Court's decision on the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Analysis

    13. The Applicant has requested retroactive exemptive relief that 
is effective for the period, August 1, 2016 through April 20, 2017, 
from sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act.\16\ 
Section 406(a)(1)(E) of the Act prohibits the acquisition, on behalf of 
a plan, of any ``employer security in violation of section 407(a) of 
the Act.''

[[Page 67667]]

Section 406(a)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary who has authority or 
discretion to control or manage the assets of a plan to permit the plan 
to hold any ``employer security'' that violates section 407(a) of the 
Act. Section 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that a plan may not 
acquire or hold an ``employer security'' which is not a ``qualifying 
employer security.'' Therefore, the acquisition and holding by the Plan 
Accounts of the Warrants constitute prohibited transactions in 
violation of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Applicant states that, although the Warrants constitute 
``employer securities,'' as defined under section 407(d)(1) of the 
Act, they do not satisfy the definition of ``qualifying employer 
securities'' as defined under section 407(d)(5) of the Act because 
they are not ``stock,'' ``marketable securities,'' or ``interests in 
a publicly-traded partnership.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Findings

    14. SSE represents the proposed exemption is administratively 
feasible because Old SSE Common Stock held by the Plan was 
automatically converted into the Warrants. In addition, SSE represents 
that the proposed exemption is in the interests of the Plan and 
participants because the Plan held shares of Old SSE Common Stock on 
the date the Warrants were issued pursuant to the Reorganization Plan. 
Therefore, SSE represents that the Plan acquired the Warrants 
automatically in the same manner as all other shareholders of Old SSE 
Common Stock. SSE also states that neither the Plan nor the Plan's 
fiduciaries took any action to cause the shares of Old SSE Common Stock 
to be replaced with the Warrants and were not part of, and did not 
participate in, the bankruptcy process or the Reorganization Plan.
    SSE represents that the exemption is protective of the rights of 
the Plan participants because: (a) The issuance of the Warrants, which 
was the result of the Reorganization Plan, occurred without any 
participation on the part of the Plan; (b) Plan participants were 
treated similarly to all other holders of Old SSE Common Stock under 
the Reorganization Plan; (c) the Trustee did not allow Plan 
participants to exercise the Warrants held by their Plan Accounts 
because the fair market value of New SSE Common Stock did not, at any 
time prior to the date that the Warrants expired, exceed the exercise 
price of the Warrants; and (d) the Plan did not pay any fees or 
commissions with respect to the acquisition or holding of the Warrants.

Summary

    15. Given the conditions described below, the Department has 
tentatively determined that the relief sought by the Applicant 
satisfies the statutory requirements for an exemption under section 
408(a) of the Act.

Proposed Exemption Operative Language

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the 
authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and section 
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth 
in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 46637, 66644, October 27, 2011). 
If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 
406(a)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act shall not apply, effective 
August 1, 2016 through April 20, 2017, to: (1) The acquisition by 
participant-directed accounts (the Accounts) in the Plan of certain 
warrants (the Warrants), issued by Seventy Seven Energy, Inc. (SSE), 
the Plan sponsor, in connection with SSE's bankruptcy; and (2) the 
holding of the Warrants by the Plan, provided that the following 
conditions were or would have been met:
    (a) The Plan acquired the Warrants automatically in connection with 
the Reorganization Plan, under which all holders of Old SSE Common 
Stock, including the Plan, were treated in the same manner;
    (b) The Plan acquired the Warrants without any unilateral action on 
its part;
    (c) The Plan did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with 
the acquisition or holding of the Warrants;
    (d) Had the Warrants not expired unexercised, all decisions 
regarding the exercise or sale of the Warrants acquired by the Plan 
would have been made by the Plan participants in whose Plan Accounts 
the Warrants were allocated, in accordance with the terms of the 
Warrant Agreement and in accordance with the Plan provisions and 
regulations pertaining to the individually-directed investment of the 
Plan Accounts; and
    (e) The Plan trustee did not allow Plan participants to exercise 
the Warrants held by their Plan Accounts because the fair market value 
of New SSE Common Stock did not, at any time prior to the date that the 
Warrants expired, exceed the exercise price of the Warrants.
    Effective Date: If granted, this proposed exemption will be 
effective as of August 1, 2016 through April 20, 2017.

Notice to Interested Persons

    SSE will provide notice of the proposed exemption to all interested 
persons, including all participants in the Plan, former employees with 
vested account balances in the Plan, all retirees and beneficiaries 
currently receiving benefits from the Plan, all employers with 
employees participating in the Plan, all unions with members 
participating in the Plan (of which there are none), and all Plan 
fiduciaries, by first class mail, within 10 days of the date of 
publication of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal 
Register. The notice will include a copy of the proposed exemption, as 
published in the Federal Register, and a supplemental statement, as 
required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which will inform interested 
persons of their right to comment with respect to the proposed 
exemption. Comments regarding the proposed exemption are due within 40 
days of the date of publication of the notice of pendency in the 
Federal Register. All comments will be made available to the public.
    Warning: If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, 
but do not submit information that you consider to be confidential, or 
otherwise protected (such as social security number or an unlisted 
phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want 
publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the internet and can 
be retrieved by most internet search engines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anna Mpras Vaughan of the 
Department, telephone (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Tidewater Savings and Retirement Plan (the Plan), Located in New 
Orleans, LA, [Application No. D-11940].

Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the 
authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974, as amended, (ERISA or the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B 
(76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). If the proposed exemption is 
granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), and 
407(a)(1)(A) of the Act will not apply, effective July 31, 2017, to: 
(1) The acquisition, by certain participant-directed accounts (the 
Accounts) in the Plan, of Series A Warrants and Series B Warrants 
(together, the Equity Warrants), issued by Tidewater Inc., the Plan 
sponsor and a party in interest with respect to the Plan; and (2) the 
holding of the Equity Warrants by the Accounts, provided the conditions 
set forth below in Section I are met.

[[Page 67668]]

Summary of Facts and Representations \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on the 
Applicant's representations, unless indicated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    1. Tidewater (the Applicant) is a publicly-traded international 
petroleum service company headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. 
Tidewater operates a fleet of ships, providing vessels and marine 
services to the offshore petroleum industry.
    2. Tidewater sponsors the Plan, a defined contribution profit-
sharing plan with approximately 565 participants and $89,496,494 total 
assets, as of March 31, 2018. Generally, all employees are eligible to 
make employee pre-tax contributions to the Plan and receive matching 
contributions. Prior to January 1, 2016, the matching contributions 
were in Tidewater common stock.
    3. Bank of America, N.A. serves as the directed trustee of the 
Plan. The Plan is administered by the Employee Benefits Committee (the 
Committee), whose eight members are appointed by Tidewater. The 
Committee members are also Tidewater officers.

Tidewater's Bankruptcy and Plan of Reorganization

    4. On May 11, 2017, Tidewater reached an agreement with certain of 
its creditors to support a restructuring under the terms of a 
prepackaged plan of reorganization. On May 12, 2017, Tidewater provided 
notice to Plan participants and employees in the form of memoranda 
explaining Tidewater's Restructuring Support Agreement with lenders and 
noteholders.
    On May 17, 2017, Tidewater and certain subsidiaries filed voluntary 
petitions for reorganization in the United States Bankruptcy Court for 
the District of Delaware (the Bankruptcy Court) seeking relief under 
the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the 
Bankruptcy Cases).
    On July 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court issued a written order (the 
Confirmation Order) confirming the Second Amended Joint Prepackaged 
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of the Affiliated Debtors (the 
Prepackaged Plan). On July 31, 2017 (the Effective Date), the 
Prepackaged Plan became effective in accordance with its terms and 
Tidewater emerged from the Bankruptcy Cases.
    5. As of the Effective Date, all shares of Tidewater's pre-
bankruptcy common stock (the Old Common Stock) were cancelled, and 
those stockholders of Tidewater received, in the aggregate, 1.5 million 
shares of the New Common Stock, which represented 5% of the pro forma 
common equity in the reorganized Tidewater. In addition, holders of the 
Old Common Stock received approximately: 0.0516 Series A Warrants for 
each share of the Old Common Stock the shareholder previously owned, 
and 0.0558 Series B Warrants for each share of the Old Common Stock the 
shareholder previously owned. Further, the Series A Warrants and the 
Series B Warrants entitled each shareholder to purchase one share of 
the New Common Stock for $57.06 and $62.28, respectively. Unless 
terminated earlier, each Equity Warrant has a six year duration.

Effect of the Prepackaged Plan on the Plan

    6. The Applicant represents that on June 30, 2017, Plan 
participants held approximately 277,716 shares of the Old Common Stock. 
On July 31, 2017, when Tidewater emerged from bankruptcy, these shares 
were cancelled and, in consideration, Plan participants received 
approximately 8,800 shares of the New Common Stock and approximately 
29,800 Equity Warrants to purchase additional shares of the New Common 
Stock. The New Common Stock and the Equity Warrants, which are traded 
on the New York Stock Exchange (the NYSE), were held in the Plan's 
trust (the Trust), and managed by Bank of America Merrill Lynch 
(Merrill Lynch), an unrelated party.

Sale of the Equity Warrants

    7. The Applicant represents that the Committee met on multiple 
occasions to monitor the Equity Warrants. On November 1, 2017, 
Committee members proposed that it would be prudent to direct Merrill 
Lynch to liquidate the Equity Warrants held by the Plan. Each sale 
transaction would be for cash, and no sale would enrich the Plan 
fiduciaries. As structured by the Committee, the sale of the Equity 
Warrants would be for no less than the fair market value of the Equity 
Warrants as traded on the NYSE. Also, Plan participants would not be 
charged a commission or fee in connection with the sales. Further, the 
Committee would authorize the sale of the Equity Warrants through the 
Merrill Lynch trading desk.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Applicant represents that the services provided by 
Merrill Lynch in connection with the sale of the Equity Warrants 
would be exempt under section 408(b)(2) of the Act. However, the 
Department is not opining on whether the conditions, as set forth in 
section 408(b)(2) of the Act and the Department's regulations, 
pursuant to 29 CFR 2550.408(b)(2) were satisfied. In addition, the 
Department is not providing exemptive relief in connection with the 
sale of the Equity Warrants in blind transactions to unrelated 
parties in open market transactions on the NYSE beyond that provided 
under section 408(b)(2) and 29 CFR 2550.408(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Applicant represents that Plan participants received notice, 
dated November 7, 2017, regarding the Committee's decision to sell the 
Equity Warrants. Plan participants were informed that: (a) Derivative 
investments, like the Equity Warrants, were not typically part of a 
retirement plan's holdings; and (b) these investments only had a value 
for a specified period of time (i.e., six years in the case of the 
Equity Warrants). Plan participants were also informed that the 
Committee had elected to sell the Equity Warrants on the NYSE in three 
tranches over a six month period to minimize the impact on the market 
price of these securities. Plan participants were told that the sale 
proceeds would be reinvested in their individual accounts under the 
Plan (the Plan Accounts), with the cash invested in accordance with the 
Plan participant's current investment allocation.
    With the exception of those Plan participants who were reporting 
persons under SEC Rule 16(b), Plan participants could elect to sell 
their Equity Warrants at any time by contacting a Merrill Lynch 
representative or direct the investment change at the Plan's website. 
The sale of Equity Warrants was not restricted to the six month period 
(November 9, 2017 to May 9, 2018), but participants were told that the 
positions would be liquidated in lots by the end of the six month time 
frame. According to the Applicant, twenty Plan participants sold a 
total of 116.001 Equity Warrants between August 24, 2017 and April 25, 
2018, for an aggregate sales price of $323.81 and $240.88, 
respectively. The final tranche of the Equity Warrants was sold on May 
11, 14, and 15, 2018.

Exemptive Relief Requested/Analysis

    9. The Applicant has requested retroactive exemptive relief that is 
effective as of July 31, 2017, the date the Plan Accounts acquired the 
Equity Warrants, and requests exemptive relief from sections 
406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act.\19\ Section 
406(a)(1)(E) of the Act prohibits the

[[Page 67669]]

acquisition, on behalf of a plan, of any ``employer security in 
violation of section 407(a) of the Act.'' Section 406(a)(2) of the Act 
prohibits a fiduciary who has authority or discretion to control or 
manage the assets of a plan to permit the plan to hold any ``employer 
security'' that violates section 407(a) of the Act. Section 
407(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that a plan may not acquire or hold an 
``employer security'' which is not a ``qualifying employer security.'' 
Therefore, the acquisition and holding by the Plan Accounts of the 
Equity Warrants constitute prohibited transactions in violation of the 
Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Applicant states that, although the Equity Warrants 
constitute ``employer securities,'' as defined under section 
407(d)(1) of the Act, they do not satisfy the definition of 
``qualifying employer securities'' as defined under section 
407(d)(5) of the Act because they are not ``stock,'' ``marketable 
securities,'' or ``interests in a publicly-traded partnership.''
    \20\ The Applicant represents that the receipt, by the Plan 
Accounts, of the New Common Stock from Tidewater as the result of 
the cancellation of the Plan's shares of the Old Common Stock is 
covered by the statutory exemption under section 408(e) of the Act. 
The Department is not expressing an opinion herein on whether the 
acquisition by the Plan Accounts of New Common Stock is statutorily 
exempt under section 408(e) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Findings

    10. The Applicant represents that the proposed exemption with 
respect to the Equity Warrants is administratively feasible because all 
shareholders of Tidewater, Inc., including the Plan, were, and will be 
treated in the same manner with respect to any acquisition, holding and 
exercise or other disposition of the Equity Warrants.
    11. The Applicant represents that the proposed exemption is in the 
interests of the Plan and participants because: (a) Plan participants 
were treated in the same manner as other stockholders; (b) Plan 
participants could acquire shares of the New Common Stock for their 
Plan Accounts by exercising their purchase rights under the Equity 
Warrants; (c) Plan participants could direct Merrill Lynch to sell the 
Equity Warrants, at any time on the NYSE; and (d) Plan participants 
were notified when the Committee approved the sale of the Equity 
Warrants.
    12. The Applicant represents that the proposed exemption is 
protective of the rights of Plan participants and beneficiaries because 
the Equity Warrants could be sold by Merrill Lynch on the NYSE, at the 
direction of either the Plan participants or the Committee. Further, 
the Applicant represents that the Plan did not pay any fees or 
commissions with respect to the acquisition or holding of the Equity 
Warrants.

Summary

    13. Given the conditions described below, the Department has 
tentatively determined that the relief sought by the Applicant 
satisfies the statutory requirements for an exemption under section 
408(a) of the Act.

Proposed Exemption Operative Language

Section I. Covered Transactions

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the 
authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974, as amended, (ERISA or the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B 
(76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). If the proposed exemption is 
granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), and 
407(a)(1)(A) of the Act will not apply, effective July 31, 2017, to: 
(1) The acquisition in the Tidewater Savings and Retirement Plan (the 
Plan), by the participant-directed accounts (the Accounts) of certain 
participants, of Series A Warrants and Series B Warrants (collectively, 
the Equity Warrants) of Tidewater, Inc. (Tidewater), the Plan sponsor 
and a party in interest with respect to the Plan; and (2) the holding 
of the Equity Warrants by the Accounts, provided that the conditions 
set forth in Section II below are or were satisfied.

Section II. Conditions for Relief

    (a) The acquisition of the Equity Warrants by the Accounts of Plan 
participants occurred in connection with Tidewater's bankruptcy 
proceeding;
    (b) The Equity Warrants were acquired pursuant to, and in 
accordance with, provisions under the Plan for individually-directed 
investments of the Accounts by the individual participants in the Plan, 
a portion of whose Accounts in the Plan held shares of old Tidewater 
common stock (the Old Common Stock);
    (c) Each shareholder of the Old Common Stock, including each 
Account of an affected Plan participant, was issued the same 
proportionate shares of the Equity Warrants based on the number of 
shares of the Old Common Stock held by the shareholder as of July 31, 
2017;
    (d) All holders of the Equity Warrants, including the Accounts, 
were treated in a like manner;
    (e) The decisions with regard to the acquisition, holding or 
disposition of the Equity Warrants by an Account were made by each Plan 
participant whose Account received the Equity Warrants;
    (f) The Accounts did not pay any brokerage fees, commissions, or 
other fees or expenses to any related broker in connection with the 
acquisition and holding of the Equity Warrants, nor did the Accounts 
pay any brokerage fees or commissions in connection with the sale of 
the Equity Warrants;
    (g) Each sale transaction involving the Equity Warrants was for 
cash, and no sale would enrich the Plan fiduciaries;
    (h) Plan participants could: (1) Acquire shares of the New Common 
Stock for their Plan Accounts by exercising their purchase rights under 
the Equity Warrants; or (2) direct Merrill Lynch to sell the Equity 
Warrants held in their Accounts, at any time; and
    (i) Plan participants were notified when the Committee approved the 
sale of the Equity Warrants.
    Effective Date: This proposed exemption, if granted, will be 
effective for the period beginning July 31, 2017, and ending whenever 
the Equity Warrants are exercised by Plan participants or they expire.

Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemption (the Notice) will be provided by 
Tidewater to interested persons within fifteen (15) days of publication 
in the Federal Register. Tidewater will provide the Notice to Plan 
participants who are affected by the cancellation of the Old Common 
Stock and the issuance of the New Common Stock and the Equity Warrants. 
The Notice will be provided to Plan participants by: (1) First class 
U.S. mail to the last known address of these individuals, or (2) 
electronic delivery to each shipping vessel Tidewater operates and 
posting on bulletin boards. The Notice will contain a copy of the 
Notice, as published in the Federal Register, and a supplemental 
statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(a)(2). The 
supplemental statement will inform interested persons of their right to 
comment on and to request a hearing with respect to the pending 
exemption. Written comments and hearing requests are due within forty-
five (45) days of the publication of the Notice in the Federal 
Register. All comments will be made available to the public.
    Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information 
(such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential 
business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All 
comments may be posted on the internet and can be retrieved by most 
internet search engines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the 
Department, telephone (202) 693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number.)


[[Page 67670]]


Principal Life Insurance Company (PLIC) and its Affiliates 
(collectively, Principal or the Applicant), Located in Des Moines, IA, 
[Application No. D-11947].

Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting an exemption under the 
authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA or the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B 
(76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).\21\ If the proposed exemption 
is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(l)(D), 406(b)(l), and 
section 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the 
application of section 4975 of the Code by reason of section 
4975(c)(l)(D) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply, to the direct or 
indirect acquisition, holding, and disposition of common stock issued 
by Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG), and/or common stock issued by 
an affiliate of PFG (together, the Principal Stock), by index funds 
(Index Funds) and model-driven funds (Model-Driven Funds) that are 
managed by PLIC, an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of PFG, or an 
affiliate of PLIC (collectively, Principal), in which client plans of 
Principal invest, provided that the conditions in Sections II and III 
are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to the 
provisions of section 406 of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise 
specified, should be read to refer as well to the corresponding 
provisions of section 4975 of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Facts and Representations

The Parties

    1. PLIC is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of PFG. As a stock 
life insurance company domiciled in Iowa, PLIC provides recordkeeping, 
administrative, and investment management services to plans.
    2. PFG is a publicly-traded company that is incorporated in 
Delaware. PFG offers businesses, individuals, and institutional clients 
a wide range of financial products and services, including retirement, 
asset management, and insurance through a diverse family of financial 
services companies. As of December 31, 2017, PFG had $669 billion in 
total assets under management and 22.8 million customers, worldwide.

The Funds

    3. Principal maintains, or may in the future maintain, insurance 
company separate accounts, separately-managed accounts, collective 
trusts, or other investment funds, accounts, or portfolios that: (a) 
Will hold plan assets, as defined in section 3(42) of the Act and 29 
CFR 2510.3-101; and (b) are designed to track a Standard & Poor's (S&P) 
or other third-party index (the Index Funds). Principal manages, or 
will manage, the Index Funds' assets as a fiduciary under the Act.
    The Index Funds currently managed by Principal include three pooled 
insurance company separate accounts that directly invest in equity 
securities that mirror, and replicate the investment performance of, 
Indexes maintained by S&P. The Index Funds presently consist of: (a) 
The Principal LargeCap S&P 500 Index Separate Account (the LargeCap 
Separate Account); (b) the Principal MidCap S&P 400 Index Separate 
Account (the MidCap Separate Account); and (c) the Principal SmallCap 
S&P 600 Index Separate Account (the SmallCap Separate Account). The 
Index Funds also include the Principal Total Market Stock Index 
Separate Account (the Total Market Separate Account), a pooled 
insurance company separate account that mirrors and replicates the 
investment performance of the S&P Supercomposite 1500 Index by 
investing in the LargeCap Separate Account, the Mid-Cap Separate 
Account, and the SmallCap Separate Account.
    As of July 31, 2017, 20,632 plans participated in the Large Cap 
Separate Account; 14,839 plans participated in the Mid-Cap Separate 
Account; 15,901 plans participated in the SmallCap Separate Account; 
and 522 plans participated in the Total Market Separate Account. Also, 
as of July 31, 2017, the total plan assets invested in the Index Funds 
were as follows: The Large Cap Separate Account--$20,016,535,718; the 
Mid-Cap Separate Account--$5,559,742,215; the SmallCap Separate 
Account--$4,293,584,718; and the Total Market Separate Account--
$122,178,926.
    The Index Funds are managed by PLIC. The LargeCap Separate Account, 
the MidCap Separate Account and the SmallCap Separate Account are 
subadvised by Principal Global Investors LLC, an affiliate. The Total 
Market Separate Account is subadvised by Principal Financial Advisors, 
Inc., another affiliate.
    4. According to the Applicant, Principal may, in the future, 
maintain insurance company separate accounts, separately-managed 
accounts, collective trusts, or other investment funds, accounts, or 
portfolios that hold plan assets. These investment vehicles are 
designed to invest in securities, of which the identity and the amount 
would be determined by a computer model that is based on prescribed, 
objective criteria using independent, third-party data to transform an 
independently-maintained index that would not be within Principal's 
control (the Model-Driven Funds). The Applicant represents that 
Principal would manage the assets of the Model-Driven Funds as a 
fiduciary under the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Unless otherwise noted, the Index Funds and the Model-
Driven Funds are collectively referred to herein as ``the Funds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investing in Principal Stock

    5. Although PFG Stock is included in the S&P 500 Index, the 
LargeCap Separate Account does not currently hold any PFG Stock. 
However, the Applicant represents that it intends to invest the 
LargeCap Separate Account in PFG Stock to track the performance of the 
S&P 500 Index more closely. The Applicant states that, if the S&P were 
to remove PFG Stock from the S&P 500 Index and include it in the S&P 
400 Index or the S&P 600 Index, PLIC would invest the corresponding 
Index Fund in PFG Stock.
    6. The Applicant represents that the Total Market Separate Account 
does not indirectly hold any PFG Stock through the Total Market 
Account's investments in the three underlying separate accounts: The 
LargeCap Separate Account, the MidCap Separate Account, and the 
SmallCap Separate Account. However, the Applicant states, if one of the 
underlying Index Funds were to hold PFG Stock, the Total Market 
Separate Account would indirectly hold PFG Stock.
    In addition, the Applicant represents that if Principal establishes 
a new Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund, and if PFG Stock or the stock of 
an affiliate of PFG (collectively, Principal Stock) is included in the 
relevant Index, Principal intends to invest the assets of the Index 
Fund or the Model-Driven Fund in Principal Stock. The Applicant states 
that, similar to the Total Market Separate Account, a newly-established 
Index Fund may indirectly invest in Principal Stock through another 
Index Fund. Although only PFG Stock is currently publicly-traded, the 
Applicant represents that Principal intends to invest both Index Funds 
and Model-Driven Funds in the common stock of an affiliate of PFG, if 
due to a corporate reorganization or other action, the common stock is 
included in the relevant Index.

[[Page 67671]]

    7. The Applicant represents that the acquisition or disposition of 
Principal Stock will be for the sole purpose of maintaining strict 
quantitative conformity with the Index upon which the Index Fund or 
Model-Driven Fund is based and not for the purpose of benefitting 
Principal. Each Index must be, among other things, created and 
maintained by an organization independent of Principal.
    8. The Applicant represents that it intends to invest the LargeCap 
Separate Account in PFG Stock in order to track more closely the 
performance of the S&P 500 Index. The Applicant states that, if S&P 
were to remove PFG Stock from the S&P 500 Index and include it in the 
S&P 400 Index or the S&P 600 Index, PLIC would invest the corresponding 
Index Fund in PFG Stock. The Applicant also states that the Total 
Market Separate Account will indirectly invest in PFG Stock if one of 
the Index Funds, in which the Total Market Account invests, were to 
invest in PFG Stock. The Applicant further represents that, even though 
currently the only Index Funds or Model-Driven Funds in existence are 
those referenced above, and the only Principal Stock is PFG Stock, the 
proposed exemption would cover: (a) Any future Index Fund that directly 
or indirectly invests in any Principal Stock; and (b) any future Model-
Driven Fund that invests in any Principal Stock.
    9. The Applicant represents that the proposed exemption is 
necessary to allow Funds holding ``plan assets'' to purchase and hold 
Principal Stock in order to replicate the capitalization-weighted or 
other specified composition of Principal Stock in an independently-
maintained third-party index used by an Index Fund, or to achieve the 
transformation of an Index used to create a portfolio for a Model-
Driven Fund.\23\ The Applicant represents that the inclusion or 
exclusion of Principal Stock from an Index and the weighting or changes 
to the weighting of Principal Stock in an Index are based on data, 
criteria, and methodology determined by the organization that creates 
and maintains the Index, which cannot be varied by PLIC. The Applicant 
represents that changes in the weighting of Principal Stock in an Index 
Fund or Model-Driven Fund would occur when there is a change in factors 
underlying the applicable weighting methodology. Changes in Index 
weightings are, for the most part, triggered by corporate actions, such 
as buying back shares, issuing more shares or acquiring another company 
for stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Applicant is not requesting any relief from sections 
406 or 407(a) of the Act in connection of the acquisition and 
holding of Principal Stock by any employee benefit plans established 
and maintained by the Applicant or its affiliates for its own 
employees that invest in Index Funds or Model-Driven Funds. In this 
regard, these transactions are covered by the statutory exemption 
under section 408(e) of the Act, if the conditions of this statutory 
exemption are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Applicant represents that there will be instances, 
once the proposed exemption is granted, when Principal Stock will be 
added to an Index on which a Fund is based, or will be added to a Fund 
portfolio which seeks to track an Index that includes Principal Stock. 
In these instances, acquisitions of Principal Stock will be necessary 
to bring the Fund's holdings of Principal Stock either to its 
capitalization-weighted or other specified composition in the Index, as 
determined by an independent organization maintaining the Index, or to 
the correct weighting for the Stock, as determined by a computer model 
that has been used to transform the Index. If the Index Fund or Model-
Driven Fund holds ``plan assets,'' all acquisitions of Principal Stock 
by the Fund must comply with the ``Buy-up'' condition set forth in 
Section II(b) of this proposed exemption.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Applicant anticipates that, generally, acquisitions of 
Principal Stock by an Index Fund or a Model-Driven Fund in a ``Buy-
up'' will occur within ten (10) business days from the date of the 
event that causes the particular Fund to require the addition of 
Principal Stock. The Applicant does not anticipate that the amounts 
of Principal Stock acquired by any Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund 
in a ``Buy-up'' will be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Independent Fiduciary (Independent Fiduciary) Appointment

    10. The Applicant states that, in the case of a Buy-up, if the 
necessary number of shares of Principal Stock cannot be acquired within 
ten (10) business days from the date of the event that causes the 
particular Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund to require Principal Stock, 
PLIC, or another affiliated fund manager (the Affiliated Fund Manager) 
will appoint an Independent Fiduciary to design acquisition procedures 
and monitor PLIC's, or the Affiliated Fund Manager's compliance with 
these procedures. The Applicant represents that Institutional 
Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS) is expected to serve as the 
Independent Fiduciary with respect to the transactions.
    The Applicant represents that the Independent Fiduciary and its 
principals will be completely independent from PLIC and its affiliates. 
The Applicant represents that the Independent Fiduciary will be 
experienced in developing and operating investment strategies for 
individual and collective investment vehicles that track third-party 
indices. Furthermore, the Applicant states that the Independent 
Fiduciary will not act as the broker for any purchases or sales of 
Principal Stock and will not receive any commissions as a result of 
this initial acquisition program. The Applicant notes that the 
Independent Fiduciary will have, as its primary goal, the development 
of trading procedures that minimize the market impact of purchases made 
pursuant to the initial acquisition program by the Index Funds or 
Model-Driven Funds.
    The Applicant represents that under the trading procedures 
established by the Independent Fiduciary, the trading activities will 
be conducted in a low-profile, mechanical, non-discretionary manner and 
would involve a number of small purchases over the course of each day, 
randomly timed. The Applicant also represents that this program will 
allow PLIC, or other Affiliated Fund Manager, to acquire the necessary 
shares of Principal Stock for the Index Funds or Model-Driven Funds 
with minimum impact on the market, and in a manner that will be in the 
best interests of any employee benefit plans that participate in these 
Funds.
    The Applicant represents that the Independent Fiduciary will also 
be required to monitor PLIC's or other Affiliated Fund Manager's 
compliance with the trading program and procedures developed for the 
initial acquisition of Principal Stock.
    The Applicant represents that, during the course of any initial 
acquisition program, the Independent Fiduciary will be required to 
review the activities weekly to determine compliance with the trading 
procedures and notify PLIC, or other Affiliated Fund Manager, should 
any non-compliance be detected. The Applicant represents that the 
Independent Fiduciary must consult with PLIC, or other Affiliated Fund 
Manager, and must approve in advance any alteration of the trading 
procedures should the trading procedures need modifications due to 
unforeseen events or consequences.

Future Fund Transactions

    11. The Applicant represents that subsequent to initial 
acquisitions pursuant to a Buy-up, all aggregate daily purchases of 
Principal Stock by the Index Funds and Model-Driven Funds will not 
exceed, on any particular day, the greater of: (a) Fifteen (15) percent 
of the average daily trading volume for the Principal Stock occurring 
on the applicable exchange and automated trading system for the 
previous five (5)

[[Page 67672]]

business days; \25\ or (b) fifteen (15) percent of the trading volume 
for Principal Stock occurring on the applicable exchange and automated 
trading system on the date of the transaction, as determined by the 
best available information for the trades that occurred on this date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Department notes that ERISA's fiduciary responsibility 
provisions would apply to the manager's selection of a trading 
venue, including an automated trading system, to effect purchases 
and sales of Principal Stock on behalf of its managed Index and 
Model-Driven Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The Applicant represents that all future transactions by the 
Index Funds and Model-Driven Funds involving Principal Stock, which do 
not occur in connection with a Buy-up of the Stock by an Index Fund or 
a Model-Driven Fund will be either: (a) Entered into on a principal 
basis with a broker-dealer that is registered under the 1934 Act, and 
thereby subject to regulation by the SEC; (b) effected on an automated 
trading system operated by a broker-dealer independent of PLIC subject 
to regulation by the SEC, or on an automated trading system operated by 
a recognized securities exchange which, in either case, provides a 
mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis 
without the participation of a broker-dealer; or (c) effected through a 
recognized securities exchange (as defined in Section III(i) of this 
proposed exemption, so long as the broker is acting on an agency 
basis.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ PTE 86-128, 51 FR 41686 (November 18, 1986), as amended at 
67 FR 64137 (October 17, 2002), provides a class exemption, under 
certain conditions, permitting persons who serve as fiduciaries for 
employee benefit plans to effect or execute securities transactions 
on behalf of the plans. The Department expresses no opinion on 
whether the conditions of this class exemption would be satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. All future acquisitions and dispositions of Principal Stock by 
Index Funds or Model-Driven Funds maintained by PLIC or its affiliates 
also will not involve any purchases from or sales to PLIC (including 
officers, directors, or employees thereof), or any party in interest 
that is a fiduciary with discretion to invest plan assets in the fund 
(unless the transaction by the fund with this party in interest would 
otherwise be subject to an exemption), other than on a blind basis 
through an exchange or automated trading system, where the identity of 
each counterparty is not known to the other.
    14. The Applicant represents that, for purposes of future 
acquisitions and holdings of Principal Stock by Index Funds and Model-
Driven Funds, if the proposed exemption is granted, Principal Stock 
will constitute no more than five (5) percent of any independent third-
party index on which the investments of an Index Fund or Model-Driven 
Fund are based. The Applicant represents that, with respect to an 
Index's specified composition of particular stocks in its portfolio, 
future Index Funds or Model-Driven Funds may track an Index where the 
appropriate weighting for stocks listed in the Index is not 
capitalization-weighted.
    As such, the Applicant states that Index Funds and Model-Driven 
Funds maintained by PLIC and its affiliates may track Indexes where the 
selection of a particular stock by the Index, and the amount of stock 
to be included in the Index, is not established based on the market 
capitalization of the corporation issuing the stock.
    The Applicant also represents that since an independent 
organization may choose to create an Index where there are other Index 
weightings for stocks comprising the Index, the proposed exemption 
should allow for Principal Stock to be acquired by an Index Fund or 
Model-Driven Fund in the amounts that are specified by the particular 
Index, subject to the other restrictions imposed by this proposed 
exemption.
    The Applicant represents that in all instances, acquisitions or 
dispositions of Principal Stock by an Index Fund or a Model-Driven Fund 
will be for the sole purpose of maintaining strict quantitative 
conformity with the relevant Index upon which the Index Fund is based 
or, in the case of a Model-Driven Fund, a modified version of the 
Index, as created by a computer model based on prescribed objective 
criteria and third-party data.

Plan Fiduciary Consent To Fund Investments

    15. With respect to any plan holding an interest in an Index Fund 
or Model-Driven Fund that intends to start investing in Principal 
Stock, the Applicant represents that before Principal Stock is 
purchased directly or indirectly by the Index Fund or Model-Driven 
Fund, Principal will provide the independent plan fiduciary (the 
Independent Plan Fiduciary) with a notice through email. The email will 
state that if the Independent Plan Fiduciary does not indicate 
disapproval of investments in Principal Stock within sixty (60) days 
from the date of the email, then the Independent Plan Fiduciary will be 
deemed to have consented to the investment in Principal Stock. The 
Department is adding requirements regarding Principal's delivery of the 
email, as described in paragraph 19.
    In addition, the Applicant represents that in the event the 
Independent Plan Fiduciary disapproves of the investment, plan assets 
invested in the Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund will be withdrawn, and 
the proceeds will be processed, as directed by the Independent Plan 
Fiduciary. The timing of the withdrawal will be as follows:

    <bullet> With respect to a plan that is not an individual 
account plan within the meaning of section 3(34) of the Act, the 
plan's assets will be withdrawn within five (5) days from when the 
Independent Plan Fiduciary notifies the Applicant of its disapproval 
of investment in Principal Stock.
    <bullet> With respect to an individual account plan within the 
meaning of section 3(34) of the Act, the Applicant will work with 
the Independent Plan Fiduciary to ensure the timing of withdrawal of 
the plan's assets from an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund complies 
with any participant notification requirement that may be applicable 
to the plan under the Department's regulation at 29 CFR 2550.404a-5. 
This regulation generally requires that plan participants be 
notified at least thirty (30) days in advance of a change in any 
designated investment alternative available under the plan. (See 29 
CFR 2550.404a-5(c)(ii). The Applicant anticipates that the plan's 
assets will be withdrawn from the Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund 
within sixty (60) days from the time the Independent Plan Fiduciary 
notifies Principal of its disapproval of investment in Principal 
Stock.

    For new plan investors in an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund, the 
Applicant represents that the Independent Plan Fiduciary will 
affirmatively consent to the investment in Principal Stock by executing 
a written subscription or similar agreement for the Index Fund or 
Model-Driven Fund that contains the appropriate approval language. 
However, if the Independent Plan Fiduciary does not specifically 
approve language in the agreement allowing the investment of plan 
assets in Funds which hold or may hold Principal Stock, then no 
investment will be made.

Voting of Principal Stock

    17. The Applicant will appoint an independent fiduciary that will 
direct the voting of Principal Stock held by the Funds. The Applicant 
expects that ISS, the Independent Fiduciary, will serve in this 
capacity. The Applicant will provide the Independent Fiduciary with all 
necessary information regarding the Funds that hold Principal Stock, 
the amount of Principal Stock held by the Funds on the record date for 
shareholder meetings of the Applicant, and all proxy and consent 
materials with respect to Principal Stock. The Independent Fiduciary 
will maintain records with respect to its activities as an Independent 
Fiduciary on behalf of

[[Page 67673]]

the Funds, including the number of shares of Principal Stock voted, the 
manner in which they were voted, and the rationale for the vote. The 
Independent Fiduciary will supply the Applicant with this information 
after each shareholder meeting. The Independent Fiduciary will be 
required to acknowledge that it will be acting as a fiduciary with 
respect to the plans that invest in the Funds that own Principal Stock, 
when voting Principal Stock.

Request for Exemptive Relief

    18. The Applicant requests an administrative exemption from the 
Department with respect to the direct or indirect acquisition, holding, 
and disposition of Principal Stock by Index and Model-Driven Funds that 
are managed by Principal, in which client plans invest. Section 
406(a)(l)(D) of the Act prohibits the use by, or for the benefit of, a 
party in interest of any assets of a plan, including plan assets held 
by an Index Fund or a Model-Driven Fund.
    The Applicant represents that as the current or future Fund Manager 
of an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund, PLIC or an affiliate is (or will 
become) a party in interest with respect to plans investing in the 
Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund under sections 3(14)(A) and 3(14)(B) of 
the Act. The Applicant also represents that the issuer of Principal 
Stock, such as PFG, is a party in interest with respect to a plan, 
under section 3(14)(E) of the Act, as the direct or indirect corporate 
parent of the Fund Manager. According to the Applicant, the 
acquisition, holding, or disposition of Principal Stock by an Index 
Fund or a Model-Driven Fund (including an indirect acquisition, 
holding, or disposition of Principal Stock by an Index Fund through its 
investment in another Index Fund) would involve the Fund Manager's use 
of plan assets by or for the benefit of its own interest and/or the 
interest of another Principal entity, in violation of section 
406(a)(l)(D) of the Act.
    18. In addition, section 406(b)(l) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary 
from dealing with the assets of the plan in its own interest or for its 
own account. Section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from 
acting in any transaction involving a plan on behalf of a party whose 
interests are adverse to the interests of the plan. The Applicant 
represents that a Fund Manager's direct or indirect acquisition, 
holding, or disposition of Principal Stock as an Index Fund or Model-
Driven Fund investment would violate section 406(b)(l) and section 
406(b)(2) of the Act due to the Fund Manager's affiliation with the 
issuer of the Principal Stock. Therefore, the Applicant requests 
exemptive relief from section 406(b)(1) and section 406(b)(2) of the 
Act.

Statutory Findings

    19. The Department has tentatively determined that the proposed 
exemption is administratively feasible. Among other things, an 
Independent Plan Fiduciary must authorize the investment of the plan's 
assets in an Index Fund or a Model-Driven Fund which directly or 
indirectly purchases and/or holds Principal Stock. Also, prior to the 
direct or indirect purchase of Principal Stock by an Index Fund or a 
Model-Driven Fund, Principal must provide the Independent Plan 
Fiduciary with an email notice stating that if the Independent Plan 
Fiduciary does not indicate disapproval of investments in Principal 
Stock within sixty (60) days of the email, the Independent Plan 
Fiduciary will be deemed to have consented to the investment in 
Principal Stock. The Department is requiring that: (1) Principal 
obtains from such Independent Plan Fiduciary prior consent in writing 
to the receipt by such Independent Plan Fiduciary of such disclosure 
via electronic email; (2) Such Independent Plan Fiduciary has provided 
to Principal a valid email address; and (3) The delivery of such 
electronic email to such Independent Plan Fiduciary is provided by 
Principal in a manner consistent with the relevant provisions of the 
Department's regulations at 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c) (substituting the 
word ``Principal'' for the word ``administrator'' as set forth therein, 
and substituting the phrase ``Independent Plan Fiduciary'' for the 
phrase ``the participant, beneficiary or other individual'' as set 
forth therein).
    Furthermore, in the event the Independent Plan Fiduciary 
disapproves of the investment, plan assets invested in the Index Fund 
or Model-Driven Fund will be withdrawn and the proceeds processed as 
directed by the Independent Plan Fiduciary.
    For new plan investors in an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund, 
Independent Plan Fiduciaries must consent to the investment in 
Principal Stock through execution of a subscription or similar 
agreement for the Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund that contains the 
appropriate approval language.
    20. The Department has tentatively determined that the proposed 
exemption is in the interests of plans invested in the Index Funds and 
Model-Driven Funds. The exemption is intended to allow Index Funds to 
track the performance of independently-maintained, third-party Indexes 
more closely. Furthermore, with respect to Model-Driven Fund plan 
investors, the investment in Principal Stock by Model-Driven Funds will 
allow the Funds to match, more closely, the performance of portfolios 
selected by computer models that are based on prescribed objective 
criteria and use independent third-party data to transform an 
independently-maintained third-party Index.
    21. The Department has tentatively determined that the proposed 
exemption is protective of the rights of the plans investing in Index 
Funds and Model-Driven Funds, and their participants and beneficiaries. 
In this regard: (a) Each Index Fund and Model-Driven Fund will be based 
on a securities index that is created and maintained by an organization 
independent of Principal; (b) the acquisition or disposition of 
Principal Stock will be for the sole purpose of maintaining strict 
quantitative conformity with the relevant index upon which the Index 
Fund or Model-Driven Fund is based; (c) all initial purchases of 
Principal Stock will occur through a recognized U.S. securities 
exchange or through an automated trading system operated by a broker-
dealer independent of Principal or by a recognized U.S. securities 
exchange; and (d) subsequent purchases of Principal Stock will also 
occur as direct, arm's length transactions with broker-dealers 
independent of Principal, thereby ensuring that the purchases of 
Principal Stock occur at market price.
    The requested exemption contains conditions on the timing and size 
of purchase transactions designed to preclude possible market price 
manipulations. Specifically, the proposed exemption requires that no 
more than five (5) percent of the total amount of Principal Stock, that 
is issued and outstanding at any time, is held in the aggregate by 
Index and Model-Driven Funds managed by PLIC or a Principal affiliate. 
Furthermore, Principal Stock must constitute no more than five (5) 
percent of any independent, third-party Index on which the investments 
of an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund are based.
    22. Finally, an Independent Plan Fiduciary must authorize the 
investment of the plan's assets in an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund 
which will directly or indirectly purchase and/or hold Principal Stock. 
Further, on any matter for which shareholders of Principal Stock are 
required or permitted to vote, PLIC or the respective Principal 
affiliate will cause the Principal Stock held by an Index Fund or 
Model-Driven Fund to be

[[Page 67674]]

voted as determined by an Independent Fiduciary.

Summary

    23. Given the conditions described below, the Department has 
tentatively determined that the relief sought by the Applicant 
satisfies the statutory requirements for an exemption under section 
408(a) of the Act.

Proposed Exemption

Section I. Covered Transactions

    If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 
406(a)(l)(D), 406(b)(l), and section 406(b)(2) of the Act and the 
sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code by 
reason of section 4975(c)(l)(D) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply to 
the direct or indirect acquisition, holding, and disposition of common 
stock issued by Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG), and/or common 
stock issued by an affiliate of PFG (together, the Principal Stock), by 
index funds (Index Funds) and model-driven funds (Model-Driven Funds) 
that are managed by Principal Life Insurance Company (PLIC), an 
indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of PFG, or an affiliate of PLIC 
(collectively, Principal), in which client plans of Principal invest, 
provided that the conditions of Sections II and III are met.

Section II. Exemption for the Acquisition, Holding and Disposition of 
Principal Stock

    (a) The acquisition or disposition of Principal Stock is for the 
sole purpose of maintaining strict quantitative conformity with the 
relevant Index upon which the Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund is based, 
and does not involve any agreement, arrangement or understanding 
regarding the design or operation of the Fund acquiring Principal Stock 
that is intended to benefit Principal or any party in which Principal 
may have an interest;
    (b) Whenever Principal Stock is initially added to an Index on 
which an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund is based, or initially added 
to the portfolio of an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund (or added to the 
portfolio of an underlying Index Fund in which another Index Fund 
invests), all purchases of Principal Stock pursuant to a Buy-up (as 
defined in Section III(d)) occur in the following manner:
    (1) Purchases are from one or more brokers or dealers;
    (2) Based on the best available information, purchases are not the 
opening transaction for the trading day;
    (3) Purchases are not effected in the last half hour before the 
scheduled close of the trading day;
    (4) Purchases are at a price that is not higher than the lowest 
current independent offer quotation, determined on the basis of 
reasonable inquiry from non-affiliated brokers;
    (5) Aggregate daily purchases do not exceed, on any particular day, 
the greater of: (i) Fifteen (15) percent of the aggregate average daily 
trading volume for the security occurring on the applicable exchange 
and automated trading system for the previous five business days, or 
(ii) fifteen (15) percent of the trading volume for the security 
occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system on 
the date of the transaction, as determined by the best available 
information for the trades occurring on that date;
    (6) All purchases and sales of Principal Stock occur either: (i) On 
a recognized U.S. securities exchange (as defined in Section IV(j) 
below), (ii) through an automated trading system (as defined in Section 
IV(b) below) operated by a broker-dealer independent of Principal that 
is registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act), 
and thereby subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (the SEC), which provides a mechanism for customer orders to 
be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-
dealer, or (iii) through an automated trading system that is operated 
by a recognized U.S. securities exchange, pursuant to the applicable 
securities laws, and provides a mechanism for customer orders to be 
matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-
dealer; and
    (7) If the necessary number of shares of Principal Stock cannot be 
acquired within ten (10) business days from the date of the event which 
causes the particular Fund to require Principal Stock, Principal 
appoints a fiduciary, which is independent of Principal (the 
Independent Fiduciary), to design acquisition procedures and monitor 
compliance with these procedures;
    (c) For transactions subsequent to a Buy-Up, all aggregate daily 
purchases of Principal Stock by the Funds do not exceed on any 
particular day the greater of:
    (1) Fifteen (15) percent of the average daily trading volume for 
Principal Stock occurring on the applicable exchange and automated 
trading system for the previous five (5) business days, or
    (2) Fifteen (15) percent of the trading volume for Principal Stock 
occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system on 
the date of the transaction, as determined by the best available 
information for the trades that occurred on this date;
    (d) All transactions in Principal Stock not otherwise described 
above in Section II(b) are either:
    (1) Entered into on a principal basis in a direct, arm's length 
transaction with a broker-dealer, in the ordinary course of its 
business, where the broker-dealer is independent of Principal and is 
registered under the 1934 Act, and thereby subject to regulation by the 
SEC;
    (2) Effected on an automated trading system operated by a broker-
dealer independent of Principal that is subject to regulation by either 
the SEC or another applicable regulatory authority, or an automated 
trading system, as defined in Section IV(b), operated by a recognized 
U.S. securities exchange which, in either case, provides a mechanism 
for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the 
participation of a broker-dealer; or
    (3) Effected through a recognized U.S. securities exchange, as 
defined in Section IV(j), so long as the broker is acting on an agency 
basis;
    (e) No purchases or sales of Principal Stock by a Fund involve 
purchases from, or sales to, Principal (including officers, directors, 
or employees thereof), or any party in interest that is a fiduciary 
with discretion to invest plan assets into the Fund (unless the 
transaction by the Fund with the party in interest would otherwise be 
subject to an exemption). However, this condition would not apply to 
purchases or sales on an exchange or through an automated trading 
system (described in paragraphs (on a blind basis where the identity of 
the counterparty is not known);
    (f) No more than five (5) percent of the total amount of Principal 
Stock, that is issued and outstanding at any time, is held in the 
aggregate by Index and Model-Driven Funds managed by Principal;
    (g) Principal Stock constitutes no more than five (5) percent of 
any independent third-party Index on which the investments of an Index 
Fund or Model-Driven Fund are based;
    (h) A fiduciary of a plan which is independent of Principal (the 
Independent Plan Fiduciary, as defined in Section IV(k)) authorizes the 
investment of the plan's assets in an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund 
which directly or indirectly purchases and/or holds Principal Stock. 
With respect to any plan holding an interest in an Index Fund or Model-
Driven Fund that intends to start investing in

[[Page 67675]]

Principal Stock, before Principal Stock is purchased directly or 
indirectly by the Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund, Principal will 
provide the Independent Plan Fiduciary with a notice through email 
stating that if the plan fiduciary does not indicate disapproval of 
investments in Principal Stock within sixty (60) days, then the 
Independent Plan Fiduciary will be deemed to have consented to the 
investment in Principal Stock. In this regard: (1) Principal must 
obtain from such Independent Plan Fiduciary prior consent in writing to 
the receipt by such Independent Plan Fiduciary of such disclosure via 
electronic email; (2) Such Independent Plan Fiduciary must have 
provided to Principal a valid email address; and (3) The delivery of 
such electronic email to such Independent Plan Fiduciary is provided by 
Principal in a manner consistent with the relevant provisions of the 
Department's regulations at 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c) (substituting the 
word ``Principal'' for the word ``administrator'' as set forth therein, 
and substituting the phrase ``Independent Plan Fiduciary'' for the 
phrase ``the participant, beneficiary or other individual'' as set 
forth therein). In the event that the Independent Plan Fiduciary 
disapproves of the investment, plan assets invested in the Index Fund 
or Model-Driven Fund will be withdrawn and the proceeds processed, as 
directed by the Independent Plan Fiduciary. For new plan investors in 
an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund, Independent Plan Fiduciaries for 
the plans will consent to the investment in Principal Stock through 
execution of a subscription or similar agreement for the Index Funds or 
Model-Driven Fund that contains the appropriate approval language; and
    (i) On any matter for which shareholders of Principal Stock are 
required or permitted to vote, Principal will cause the Principal Stock 
held by an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund to be voted, as determined 
by the Independent Fiduciary.

Section III. General Conditions

    (a) Principal maintains or causes to be maintained for a period of 
six (6) years from the date of the transactions, the records necessary 
to enable the persons described in paragraph (b) of this Section III to 
determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, 
except that: (1) A prohibited transaction will not be considered to 
have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of Principal, 
the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six year 
period, and (2) no party in interest, other than Principal, shall be 
subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) 
of the Act or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the 
Code if the records are not maintained or are not available for 
examination as required by paragraph (b) below.
    (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this Section III 
and notwithstanding any provisions of section 504(a)(2) and (b) of the 
Act, the records referred to in paragraph (a) of this Section III are 
unconditionally available at their customary location for examination 
during normal business hours by:
    (A) Any duly authorized employee or representative of the 
Department, the Internal Revenue Service or the SEC;
    (B) Any fiduciary of a plan participating in an Index Fund or 
Model-Driven Fund, who has authority to acquire or dispose of the 
interests of the plan, or any duly authorized employee or 
representative of the fiduciary;
    (C) Any contributing employer to any plan participating in an Index 
Fund or Model-Driven Fund or any duly authorized employee or 
representative of the employer; and
    (D) Any participant or beneficiary of any plan participating in an 
Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund, or a representative of the participant 
or beneficiary; and
    (2) None of the persons described in subparagraphs (B) through (D) 
of this Section III(b)(1) shall be authorized to examine trade secrets 
of Principal or commercial or financial information which are 
considered confidential.

Section IV. Definitions

    (a) An ``affiliate'' of Principal includes:
    (1) Any person, directly or indirectly, through one or more 
intermediaries, controlling, controlled by or under common control with 
the person;
    (2) Any officer, director, employee or relative of the person, or 
partner of any the person; and
    (3) Any corporation or partnership of which the person is an 
officer, director, partner or employee;
    (b) The term ``automated trading system'' means an electronic 
trading system that functions in a manner intended to simulate a 
securities exchange by electronically matching orders on an agency 
basis from multiple buyers and sellers, such as an ``alternative 
trading system'' within the meaning of the SEC's Reg. ATS (17 CFR part 
242.300), as this definition may be amended from time to time, or an 
``automated quotation system'' as described in Section 3(a)(5l)(A)(ii) 
of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 8c(a)(5 l)(A)(ii));
    (c) The term ``Buy-up'' means an initial acquisition of Principal 
Stock by an Index Fund or Model-Driven Fund which is necessary to bring 
the Fund's holdings of Principal Stock either to its capitalization-
weighted or other specified composition in the relevant index (the 
Index), as determined by the independent organization maintaining the 
Index, or to its correct weighting as determined by the model which has 
been used to transform the Index;
    (d) The term ``control'' means the power to exercise a controlling 
influence over the management or policies of a person other than an 
individual;
    (e) The term ``Fund'' means an Index Fund (as described in Section 
IV(a)) or a Model-Driven Fund (as described in Section III(b))
    (f) The term ``Index'' means a securities index that represents the 
investment performance of a specific segment of the public market for 
equity or debt securities, but only if:
    (1) The organization creating and maintaining the Index is:
    (A) Engaged in the business of providing financial information, 
evaluation, advice, or securities brokerage services to institutional 
clients; or
    (B) A publisher of financial news or information; or
    (C) A public stock exchange or association of securities dealers; 
and
    (2) The Index is created and maintained by an organization 
independent of Principal; and
    (3) The Index is a generally-accepted standardized index of 
securities which is not specifically tailored for the use of Principal;
    (g) The term ``Index Fund'' means any investment fund, trust, 
insurance company separate account, separately managed account, or 
portfolio, sponsored, maintained, trusteed, or managed by Principal, in 
which one or more investors invest, and:
    (1) Which is designed to track the rate of return, risk profile and 
other characteristics of an independently-maintained securities index, 
as described in Section IV(c) below, by either: (i) Investing directly 
in the same combination of securities which compose the Index or in a 
sampling of the securities, based on objective criteria and data, or 
(ii) investing in one or more other Index Funds to indirectly invest in 
the same combination of securities which compose the Index, or in a 
sampling of the securities based on objective criteria and data;

[[Page 67676]]

    (2) For which all assets held outside of any liquidity buffer are 
invested without Principal using its discretion, or data within its 
control, to affect the identity or amount of securities to be purchased 
or sold, and the liquidity buffer, if any, does not hold any Principal 
Stock;
    (3) That contains ``plan assets'' subject to the Act;
    (4) That involves no agreement, arrangement, or understanding 
regarding the design or operation of the Fund, which is intended to 
benefit Principal or any party in which Principal may have an interest.
    (h) The term ``Model-Driven Fund'' means any investment fund, 
trust, insurance company separate account, separately managed account, 
or portfolio, sponsored, maintained, trusteed, or managed by Principal, 
in which one or more investors invest, and:
    (1) For which all assets held outside of any liquidity buffer 
consist of securities the identity of which and the amount of which are 
selected by a computer model that is based on prescribed objective 
criteria using independent third-party data, not within the control of 
Principal, to transform an independently-maintained Index, as defined 
in Section IV(c) below, and the liquidity buffer, if any, does not hold 
any Principal Stock;
    (2) That contains ``plan assets'' subject to the Act; and
    (3) That involves no agreement, arrangement, or understanding 
regarding the design or operation of the Fund or the utilization of any 
specific objective criteria which is intended to benefit Principal or 
any party in which Principal may have an interest;
    (i) The term ``Principal'' refers to Principal Life Insurance 
Company, its indirect parent and holding company, Principal Financial 
Group, Inc., and any current or future affiliate, as defined above in 
Section IV(a);
    (j) The term ``recognized U.S. securities exchange'' means a U.S. 
securities exchange that is registered as a ``national securities 
exchange'' under Section 6 of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78f), as this 
definition may be amended from time to time, which performs with 
respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock 
exchange within the meaning of definitions under the applicable 
securities laws (e.g., 17 CFR part 240.3b-16); and
    (k) The term ``Independent Plan Fiduciary'' means a fiduciary of a 
plan, where such fiduciary is independent of and unrelated to 
Principal. The Independent Plan Fiduciary will not be deemed to be 
independent of and unrelated to Principal if:
    (1) Such Independent Plan Fiduciary, directly or indirectly, 
through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is 
under common control with Principal;
    (2) Such Independent Plan Fiduciary, or any officer, director, 
partner, employee, or relative of such Independent Plan Fiduciary, is 
an officer, director, partner, or employee of Principal (or is a 
relative of such person); or
    (3) Such Independent Plan Fiduciary, directly or indirectly, 
receives any compensation or other consideration for his or her 
personal account in connection with any transaction described in this 
proposed exemption.

Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice of the proposed exemption will be given to all fiduciaries 
of plans invested in the Index Funds within 30 days of the publication 
of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register, by 
electronic mail to the last known email address of all fiduciaries. 
Principal will also publish the notice on a website through which plan 
fiduciaries communicate with Principal. The notice will contain a copy 
of the notice of proposed exemption, as published in the Federal 
Register, and a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 
2570.43(a)(2). The supplemental statement will inform interested 
persons of their right to comment on the pending exemption. Written 
comments are due within 45 days of the publication of the notice of 
proposed exemption in the Federal Register.
    All comments will be made available to the public.
    Warning: If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, 
but DO NOT submit information that you consider to be confidential, or 
otherwise protected (such as Social Security number or an unlisted 
phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want 
publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the internet and can 
be retrieved by most internet search engines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Ness of the Department, 
telephone (202) 693-8561. (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 20th day of December, 2018.
Lyssa Hall,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits 
Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2018-28091 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>