49788 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

Background 

The Douglas County Rural Water 

Project Appraisal Report addresses the 

County’s extremely low recharge into 

and high withdrawal amounts from the 

Denver Basin aquifers and proposes to 

resolve this issue by replacing current 

groundwater supplies with an 

alternative source of water. The 

proposed alternative includes water 

treatment, raw and finished water 

transmission, finished water storage, 

and aquifer storage and recovery for 

delivery of surface water from existing 

diversions and water impoundments on 

the South Platte River to this large rural 

region of central Colorado. 

The Dry-Redwater Rural Water 

System project would serve a 

population of about 15,000 people in 

the project area, including the towns of 

Circle, Richey, Jordan, and Fairview; the 

unincorporated town of Lambert; the 

water districts of Highland Park, Forrest 

Park, Spring Grove, and Whispering 

Tree; and rural users in the service area. 

It examines opportunities to provide 

communities, unincorporated areas, and 

rural areas in east-central Montana with 

a present and future source of high 

quality water from North Rock Creek in 

the Big Dry Arm of Fort Peck Reservoir. 

The Musselshell-Judith Rural Water 

System Appraisal Investigation was 

conducted by the Central Montana 

Regional Water Authority to assess the 

viability of developing a rural water 

system to serve about 4,500 people in 15 

incorporated and unincorporated towns 

in central Montana. The proposed 

alternative would supply water to the 

system from a field of groundwater 

wells in the Utica, Montana area. Water 

pumped from the Madison Aquifer, a 

deep underground aquifer, would be 

distributed from the well field by a 

branch type system of pipelines, booster 

pump stations, and storage tanks. 

The Lower Niobrara project area is 

located in Knox County in northeast 

Nebraska. There is a growing need for 

an improved water source because of 

rising nitrate levels in some areas. The 

proposed study area comprises 

approximately the central one-third of 

Knox County, which includes the West 

Knox Rural Water System (RWS), the 

Santee Sioux Reservation, and the 

towns of Creighton, Niobrara, and 

Center. The preferred alternative for 

Lower Niobrara consists of expanding 

the West Knox RWS Well Field to 

supply Creighton, Niobrara, Center, and 

the Santee Sioux Reservation. 

The Southern Black Hills Water 

System (SBHWS) project is designed to 

provide a regional water supply and 

water delivery system for rural users, 

special use needs, and community 

needs for southern Pennington County, 

all of Custer County, and all of Fall 

River County, in southwestern South 

Dakota. The SBHWS appraisal 

investigation evaluated a number of 

alternatives ranging from purchasing 

water from an existing entity, 

developing new infrastructure, and 

some non-structural alternatives which 

include water use polices (e.g., prohibit 

rural residential growth) and water 

conservation (e.g., leak detection 

surveys). 

Dated: July 11, 2011. 

Roseann Gonzales, 

Director, Policy and Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20392 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

Exemptions From Certain Prohibited 

Transaction Restrictions 

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

exemptions issued by the Department of 

Labor (the Department) from certain of 

the prohibited transaction restrictions of 

the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) 

and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 (the Code). This notice includes 

the following: D–11468 and D–11469, 

The Krispy Kreme Doughnut 

Corporation Retirement Savings Plan 

(the Savings Plan) and the Krispy Kreme 

Profit-Sharing Stock Ownership Plan 

the KSOP (together, the Plans), 2011–10; 

D–11634, The United Brotherhood of 

Carpenters Pension Fund (the Plan), 

2011–11; and L–11651 and L–11652, 

Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon 

and Cellco Partnership, doing business 

as Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless; 

collectively the Applicants), 2011–12 et 

al. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

was published in the Federal Register of 

the pendency before the Department of 

a proposal to grant such exemption. The 

notice set forth a summary of facts and 

representations contained in the 

application for exemption and referred 

interested persons to the application for 

a complete statement of the facts and 

representations. The application has 

been available for public inspection at 

the Department in Washington, DC. The 

notice also invited interested persons to 

submit comments on the requested 

exemption to the Department. In 

addition the notice stated that any 

interested person might submit a 

written request that a public hearing be 

held (where appropriate). The applicant 

has represented that it has complied 

with the requirements of the notification 

to interested persons. No requests for a 

hearing were received by the 

Department. Public comments were 

received by the Department as described 

in the granted exemption. 

The notice of proposed exemption 

was issued and the exemption is being 

granted solely by the Department 

because, 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 proposed to the Secretary of 

Labor. 

Statutory Findings 

In accordance with section 408(a) of 

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

Code and the procedures set forth in 29 

CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 

32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon 

the entire record, the Department makes 

the following findings: 

(a) The exemption is administratively 

feasible; 

(b) The exemption is in the interests 

of the plan and its participants and 

beneficiaries; and 

(c) The exemption is protective of the 

rights of the participants and 

beneficiaries of the plan. 

The Krispy Kreme Doughnut 

Corporation Retirement Savings Plan 

(the Savings Plan) and the Krispy Kreme 

Profit-Sharing Stock Ownership Plan 

the KSOP; together, the Plans) 

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 

2011–10; Located in Winston-Salem, 

North Carolina [Exemption Application 

Nos. D–11468 and D–11469, 

respectively] 

Exemption 

The restrictions of section 

406(a)(1)(A),(D),(E), section 406(a)(2), 

section 406(b)(2) and section 407(a) of 

the Act and the sanctions resulting from 

the application of section 4975 of the 

Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) 

and (D) of the Code, shall not apply, 

effective January 16, 2007, to (1) the 

release by the Plans of their claims 

against Krispy Kreme Doughnut 

Corporation (KKDC), the sponsor of the 

Plans, Michael Phalen and Price

waterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), parties 

in interest with respect to the Plan, in 

exchange for cash, shares of common 

stock (the Common Stock) and warrants 

(the Warrants) issued by Krispy Kreme 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49789 

Doughnuts, Inc. (KKDI), the parent of 

KKDC and also a party in interest, in 

settlement of certain litigation (the 

Securities Litigation) between the Plans 

and KKDC, Mr. Phalen and PwC; and (2) 

the holding of the Warrants by the 

Plans. 

This exemption is subject to the 

following conditions: 

(a) The receipt and holding of cash, 

the Common Stock and the Warrants 

occurred in connection with a genuine 

controversy in which the Plans were 

parties. 

(b) An independent fiduciary was 

retained on behalf of the Plans to 

determine whether or not the Plans 

should have joined in the Securities 

Litigation and accept cash, the Common 

Stock and the Warrants pursuant to a 

settlement agreement (the Settlement 

Agreement). Such independent 

fiduciary— 

(1) Had no relationship to, or interest 

in, any of the parties involved in the 

Securities Litigation that might affect 

the exercise of such person’s judgment 

as a fiduciary; 

(2) Acknowledged, in writing, that it 

was a fiduciary for the Plans with 

respect to the settlement of the 

Securities Litigation; and 

(3) Determined that an all cash 

settlement was either not feasible or was 

less beneficial to the participants and 

beneficiaries of the Plans than accepting 

all or part of the settlement in non-cash 

assets. 

(4) Thoroughly reviewed and 

determined whether it would be in the 

best interests of the Plans and their 

participants and beneficiaries to engage 

in the covered transactions. 

(5) Determined whether the decision 

by the Plans’ fiduciaries to cause the 

Plans not to opt out of the Securities 

Litigation was more beneficial to the 

Plans than having the Plans file a 

separate lawsuit against KKDC. 

(c) The terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, including the scope of the 

release of claims, the amount of cash 

and the value of any non-cash assets 

received by the Plans, and the amount 

of any attorney’s fee award or any other 

sums to be paid from the recovery were 

reasonable in light of the Plans’ 

likelihood of receiving full recovery, the 

risks and costs of litigation, and the 

value of claims foregone. 

(d) The terms and conditions of the 

transactions were no less favorable to 

the Plans than comparable arm’s length 

terms and conditions that would have 

been agreed to by unrelated parties 

under similar circumstances. 

(e) The transactions were not part of 

an agreement, arrangement, or 

understanding designed to benefit a 

party in interest. 

(f) All terms of the Settlement 

Agreement were specifically described 

in a written document approved by the 

United States District Court for the 

Middle District of North Carolina. 

(g) Non-cash assets, which included 

the Common Stock and Warrants 

received by the Plans from KKDC under 

the Settlement Agreement, were 

specifically described in the Settlement 

Agreement and valued as determined in 

accordance with a court-approved 

objective methodology; 

(h) The Plans did not pay any fees or 

commissions in connection with the 

receipt or holding of the Common Stock 

and the Warrants. 

(i) KKDC maintains, or causes to be 

maintained, for a period of six years 

such records as are necessary to enable 

the persons described in paragraph (j)(1) 

below to determine whether the 

conditions of this exemption have been 

met, except that— 

(1) If the records necessary to enable 

the persons described in paragraph (j)(1) 

to determine whether the conditions of 

this exemption have been met are lost, 

or destroyed, due to circumstances 

beyond the control of KKDC, then no 

prohibited transaction will be 

considered to have occurred solely on 

the basis of the unavailability of those 

records; and 

(2) No party in interest with respect 

to the Plans other than KKDC 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 such 

records are not maintained or are not 

available for examination as required by 

paragraph (i). 

(j)(1) Except as provided in this 

paragraph (j) and notwithstanding any 

provision of section 504(a)(2) and (b) of 

the Act, the records referred to in 

paragraph (i) above are unconditionally 

available at their customary locations 

for examination during normal business 

hours by: 

(A) Any duly authorized employee, 

agent or representative of the 

Department or the Internal Revenue 

Service, or the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC); 

(B) Any fiduciary of the Plans or any 

duly authorized representative of such 

participant or beneficiary; 

(C) Any participant or beneficiary of 

the Plans or duly authorized 

representative of such participant or 

beneficiary; 

(D) Any employer whose employees 

are covered by the Plans; or 

(E) Any employee organization whose 

members are covered by such Plans. 

(2) None of the persons described in 

paragraph (j)(1)(B) through (E) shall be 

authorized to examine trade secrets of 

KKDC or commercial or financial 

information which is privileged or 

confidential. 

(3) Should KKDC refuse to disclose 

information on the basis that such 

information is exempt from disclosure, 

KKDC shall, by the close of the thirtieth 

(30th) day following the request, 

provide written notice advising that 

person of the reason for the refusal and 

that the Department may request such 

information. 

DATES: Effective Date: This exemption is 

effective as of January 16, 2007. 

Written Comments 

In the Notice of Proposed Exemption 

(76 FR 14083, March 15, 2011)(the 

Notice), the Department invited all 

interested persons to submit written 

comments and requests for a hearing on 

the proposed exemption within forty 

(40) days of the date of the publication 

of such Notice in the Federal Register. 

All comments and requests for a hearing 

from interested persons were due by 

April 24, 2011. However, KKDC 

required additional time to mail the 

Notice to interested persons. Therefore, 

the Department extended the comment 

period until May 15, 2011. 

During the comment period, the 

Department received one written 

comment and no requests for a hearing. 

KKDC submitted the comment on March 

31, 2011 that it supplemented by emails dated April 19, 2011 and April 21, 

2011. 

In its comment, KKDC stated that the 

proposed exemption should be 

extended to include PwC and Mr. 

Phalen, the former Chief Financial 

Office of KKDI and a member of the 

Plans’ Investment Committee. Both were 

parties to the Securities Litigation and 

parties in interest with respect to the 

Plans. In regard to PwC and Mr. Phalen, 

the KKDC asserts the following: 

It is possible that each Plan’s (A) failure to 

opt of the [Securities Litigation], and any 

corresponding release of claims thereby 

effected, and (B) subsequent filing of a Proof 

of Claim and Release in favor of parties in 

interest KKDC, Phalen and PwC, in exchange 

for the Plan’s right to receive its pro rata 

portion of the settlement proceeds in the 

Securities Litigation could have resulted in a 

violation of [the] prohibited transaction 

restrictions of ERISA and the Code. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the release of 

KKDC, Phalen, and PwC could each be 

viewed as a prohibited transaction, the 

proposed relief published in the Federal 

Register on March 15, 2011 provides an 

exemption only with respect to the release of 

KKDC, and leaves open the possibility that 

the releases of Phalen and PwC are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49790 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 

prohibited transactions with respect to the 

Plans. 

KKDC further explains that the Plans’ 

decision to enter into the Settlement 

Agreement to grant the releases of 

claims against the party in interest 

defendants was primarily based on the 

advice of Independent Fiduciary 

Services (IFS), the independent 

fiduciary for the Plans. Based on IFS’ 

conclusions and the Department’s 

determination that it was appropriate to 

grant an exemption for the Plans’ release 

of claims against KKDC, KKDC explains 

that it is important that similar 

exemptive relief be provided with 

respect to the Plans’ release of claims 

against PwC and Mr. Phalen. 

If the exemption is not extended to 

these parties, KKDC believes the Plans’ 

participation in the settlement of the 

Securities Litigation would have to be 

reversed and the Plans would be 

required to return their share of the 

settlement proceeds received. 

Additionally, KKDC notes that the Plans 

would lose a significant economic 

benefit if compelled to pursue separate 

litigation on this matter. 

In response to this comment, the 

operative language of this exemption 

has been amended accordingly. The 

Department notes that the sentence in 

the Notice identifying PwC and Mr. 

Phalen as party in interest defendants 

was inadvertently omitted from the 

Notice. In this regard, the last sentence 

of the first paragraph of Representation 

6 of the Notice, located in the third 

column of page 14085, should have 

read: ‘‘The class action defendants (the 

Class Defendants) included KKDC, PwC, 

and Mr. Phalen, who served as the Chief 

Financial Officer of KKDI and a member 

of each Plan’s committee.’’ 

Additionally, a new sentence should 

have been added to the end of the first 

paragraph of Representation 6 of the 

Notice located in the third column of 

page 14085, stating: ‘‘With the exception 

of KKDI, Mr. Phalen and PwC, none of 

the other Class Defendants was a party 

in interest with respect to the Plans.’’ 

The Department, therefore, wishes to 

clarify that the requested relief includes 

all the party in interest Class Defendants 

with respect to the Securities Litigation. 

Furthermore, although the Department 

has determined that the exemption 

sufficiently covers the potential 

prohibited transaction engaged by 

KKDC in its capacity as a fiduciary, it 

does not provide exemptive relief for 

any prohibited transactions that resulted 

from the events leading to the filing of 

the Securities Litigation. 

Accordingly, after giving full 

consideration to the entire record, 

including the KKDC written comment 

and supplemental statements, the 

Department has determined to grant the 

exemption as clarified herein. For a 

more complete statement of the facts 

and representations supporting the 

Department’s decision to grant this 

exemption, refer to the Notice published 

on March 15, 2011 at 76 FR 14083. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Anh-Viet Ly of the Department at (202) 

693–8648. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) 

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters 

Pension Fund (the Plan), Located in Las 

Vegas, Nevada, [Prohibited Transaction 

Exemption 2011–11; Exemption 

Application No. D–11634]. 

Exemption 

The restrictions of sections 

406(a)(1)(A), (D) and 406(b)(2) of the Act 

and the sanctions resulting from the 

application of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and 

(D) of the Code, shall not apply to the 

proposed sale (Sale) of a 10.89 acre 

parcel of real property (the Parcel), 

which is part of larger parcel of real 

property (the Nevada Property), from 

the Plan-owned Bermuda Hidden Well, 

LLC to the Southwest Regional Council 

of Carpenters, a party in interest with 

respect to the Plan; provided that the 

following conditions are satisfied: 

(a) The terms and conditions of the 

Sale are at least as favorable to the Plan 

as those obtainable in an arm’s length 

transaction with an unrelated party; 

(b) The Sale is a one-time transaction 

for cash; 

(c) As consideration, the Plan receives 

the greater of $5,383,577, or the fair 

market value of the Parcel as 

determined by a qualified, independent 

appraiser (the Appraiser) in an appraisal 

of the Nevada Property, which is 

updated on the date of Sale; 

(d) The Plan pays no commissions, 

costs or fees with respect to the Sale, 

except for customary closing costs and 

50% of certain rental credits that are 

paid to unrelated parties; and 

(e) The Plan fiduciaries review and 

approve the methodology used by the 

Appraiser, ensure that such 

methodology is properly applied in 

determining the fair market value of the 

Parcel, and also determine whether it is 

prudent to go forward with the 

proposed transaction. 

For a more complete statement of the 

facts and representations supporting the 

Department’s decision to grant this 

exemption, refer to the notice of 

proposed exemption published on May 

5, 2011 at 76 FR 25714. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Anh-Viet Ly of the Department at (202) 

693–8648. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) 

Verizon Communications, Inc. 

(Verizon) and Cellco Partnership, doing 

business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon 

Wireless; collectively, the Applicants), 

Located in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, 

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 

2011–12; Exemption Application Nos. 

L–11651 and L–11652]. 

Exemption 

The restrictions of sections 406(a) and 

(b) of the Act shall not apply to the 

reinsurance of risks and the receipt of 

premiums therefrom by Exchange 

Indemnity Company (EIC), a whollyowned subsidiary of Verizon, in 

connection with an insurance contract 

sold by Prudential Life Insurance 

Company (Prudential) or any successor 

insurance company to Prudential which 

is unrelated to Verizon, to provide 

group-term life insurance to certain 

employees and retirees of Verizon and 

Verizon Wireless under The Plan for 

Group Insurance maintained by Verizon 

and the Verizon Wireless Health and 

Welfare Benefits Plan maintained by 

Verizon Wireless (collectively, the 

Plans), provided the following 

conditions are met: 

(a) EIC— 

(1) Is a party in interest with respect 

to the Plan by reason of a stock or 

partnership affiliation with Verizon that 

is described in section 3(14)(E) or (G) of 

the Act, 

(2) Is licensed to sell insurance or 

conduct reinsurance operations in at 

least one State as defined in section 

3(10) of the Act, (3) Has obtained a 

Certificate of Authority from the 

Insurance Commissioner of its 

domiciliary state which has neither 

been revoked nor suspended, 

(4)(A) Has undergone and shall 

continue to undergo an examination by 

an independent certified public 

accountant for its last completed taxable 

year immediately prior to the taxable 

year of the reinsurance transaction; or 

(B) Has undergone a financial 

examination (within the meaning of the 

law of its domiciliary State, Vermont) by 

the Insurance Commissioner of Vermont 

within 5 years prior to the end of the 

year preceding the year in which the 

reinsurance transaction occurred, and 

(5) Is licensed to conduct reinsurance 

transactions by a State whose law 

requires that an actuarial review of 

reserves be conducted annually by an 

independent firm of actuaries and 

reported to the appropriate regulatory 

authority; 

(b) The Plans pay no more than 

adequate consideration for the 

insurance contracts; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Notices 49791 

(c) In subsequent years, the formula 

used to calculate premiums by 

Prudential or any successor insurer will 

be similar to formulae used by other 

insurers providing comparable coverage 

under similar programs. Furthermore, 

the premium charge calculated in 

accordance with the formula will be 

reasonable and will be comparable to 

the premium charged by the insurer and 

its competitors with the same or a better 

rating providing the same coverage 

under comparable programs; 

(d) The Plans only contract with 

insurers with a rating of A or better from 

A.M. Best Company. The reinsurance 

arrangement between the insurer and 

EIC will be indemnity insurance only, 

i.e., the insurer will not be relieved of 

liability to the Plans should EIC be 

unable or unwilling to cover any 

liability arising from the reinsurance 

arrangement; 

(e) No commissions, costs or other 

expenses are paid with respect to the 

reinsurance of such contracts; and 

(f) For each taxable year of EIC, the 

gross premiums and annuity 

considerations received in that taxable 

year by EIC for life and health insurance 

or annuity contracts for all employee 

benefit plans (and their employers) with 

respect to which EIC is a party in 

interest by reason of a relationship to 

such employer described in section 

3(14)(E) or (G) of the Act does not 

exceed 50% of the gross premiums and 

annuity considerations received for all 

lines of insurance (whether direct 

insurance or reinsurance) in that taxable 

year by EIC. For purposes of this 

condition (f): 

(1) the term ‘‘gross premiums and 

annuity considerations received’’ means 

as to the numerator the total of 

premiums and annuity considerations 

received, both for the subject 

reinsurance transactions as well as for 

any direct sale or other reinsurance of 

life insurance, health insurance or 

annuity contracts to such plans (and 

their employers) by EIC. This total is to 

be reduced (in both the numerator and 

the denominator of the fraction) by 

experience refunds paid or credited in 

that taxable year by EIC. 

(2) all premium and annuity 

considerations written by EIC for plans 

which it alone maintains are to be 

excluded from both the numerator and 

the denominator of the fraction. 

For a more complete statement of the 

facts and representations supporting the 

Department’s decision to grant this 

exemption, refer to the notice of 

proposed exemption published on May 

5, 2011 at 76 FR 25721. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

H. Lefkowitz of the Department, 

telephone (202) 693–8546. (This is not 

a toll-free number.) 

General Information 

The attention of interested persons is 

directed to the following: 

(1) The fact that a transaction is the 

subject of an exemption under section 

408(a) of the Act and/or section 

4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve 

a fiduciary or other party in interest or 

disqualified person from certain other 

provisions 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) This exemption is supplemental to 

and not in derogation of, any other 

provisions of the Act and/or the Code, 

including statutory or administrative 

exemptions and transactional rules. 

Furthermore, the fact that a transaction 

is subject to an administrative or 

statutory exemption is not dispositive of 

whether the transaction is in fact a 

prohibited transaction; and 

(3) The availability of this exemption 

is subject to the express condition that 

the material facts and representations 

contained in the application accurately 

describes all material terms of the 

transaction which is the subject of the 

exemption. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 4th day of 

August, 2011. 

Ivan Strasfeld, 

Director of Exemption Determinations, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20342 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

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). This notice includes the 

following proposed exemptions: D– 

11601, BB&T Asset Management, Inc. 

(BB&T AM); and D–11661, Bayer 

Corporation (Bayer or the Applicant) et 

al.] 

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, 

within 45 days from the date of 

publication of this Federal Register 

Notice. 

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 to the Employee Benefits 

Security Administration (EBSA), Office 

of Exemption Determinations, Room N– 

5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210. Attention: Application No. 

llll, 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 e-mail 

to: moffitt.betty@dol.gov, or by FAX to 

(202) 219–0204 by the end of the 

scheduled comment period. The 

applications for exemption and the 

comments received will be available for 

public inspection in the Public 

Documents Room of the Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room N–1513, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. 

Warning: If you submit written 

comments or hearing requests, do not 

include any personally-identifiable or 

confidential business information that 

you do not want to be publiclydisclosed. All comments and hearing 

requests are posted on the Internet 

exactly as they are received, and they 

can be retrieved by most Internet search 

engines. The Department will make no 

deletions, modifications or redactions to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES