Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 1, 2000 / Notices 65331

articles which are produced by the firm

or subdivision.

Negative Determinations NAFTA–TAA

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criteria (3)

and (4) were not met. Imports from

Canada or Mexico did not contribute

importantly to workers’ separations.

There was no shift in production from

the subject firm to Canada or Mexico

during the relevant period.

NAFTA–TAA–04113; U.S. Textiles

Corp., Newland, NC

NAFTA–TAA–04101; The Garden Grow

Co., Lilly Miller Packet Seed Div.,

Wilsonville, OR

NAFTA–TAA–04170; Tru-Stitch

Footwear, Malone, NY

NAFTA–TAA–03968; Mar-Kel Lighting,

Inc., Paris, TN

NAFTA–TAA–04157; Heinz Pet

Products Co., El Paso, TX

NAFTA–TAA–04136; Banta Healthcare

Group, Lakeland Plant, Eaton Park,

FL

The investigation revealed that the

criteria for eligibility have not been met

for the reasons specified.

NAFTA–TAA–04151 & A; Equitable

Production, Kingsport, TN and

Nora, VA

NAFTA–TAA–04164; Avalon Payroll

Group., Inc., New York, NY

NAFTA–TAA–04159; Fujitsu Computer

Products of America (F.C.P.A.),

Cleanroom, Hillsboro, OR

NAFTA–TAA–04077; Movies 99/New

Movie Corp., Salt lake City, UT

NAFTA–TAA–0486; Eagle Precision

Technologies, Inc., Eagle-Eaton

Leonard, Carlsbad, CA

The investigation revealed that

workers of the subject firm did not

produce an article within the meaning

of section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as

amended.

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

NAFTA–TAA–04066; Lund

International, Lund Industries, Inc.,

Anoka, MN: July 31, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04100; Great Lakes

Chemical Corp., Polymer Additives

Div., Laredo, TX: August 2, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04116; WTTC, Inc.,

Cutting Department, Raymondville,

TX: August 18, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04109; Universal

Uniforms, Inc., Universal Denim

Service/Garment Finishing Div.,

Louisville, KY: August 21, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04106; Unites States

Leather, Lackawanna Leather, El

Paso, TX: August 14, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04017; & A; Crown

Pacific Gilchrist, OR and Prineville,

OR Including Temporary Workers

of Mid-Oregon Labor Contractors,

Express Personnel and Labor Ready

Employed at Crown Pacific Gilchrist

OR and Prineville, OR: February 11,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04166; Flowserve Corp.,

Pump Div., Phillipsburg, NJ:

September 14, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04172; Ametek

Aerospace, Wilmington, MA:

September 18, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–4138; Delco Remy

America, Anderson, IN: September

6, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04090; Midwest Electric

Products, Mankato, MN: August 9,

1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04000; Spring Industries,

Inc., Baby Products Div., Carver

Road Plant, Griffin, GA and Jackson

Plant, Jackson, GA: June 28, 1999

NAFTA–TAA–04146; AirBoss Polymer

Products Corp., South Haven, MI

September 7, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04128; Fawn Industries,

Middlesex, NC: September 1, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04117; TRW, Valve

Division, Danville, PA: August 23,

1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04118; Louisiana Pacific

Corp., Engineered Wood Products,

Hines, OR: August 17, 1999.

NAFTA–04074; Jockey International,

Inc., Hosiery Div., Randleman, NC:

August 1, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04135; United States

Leather, Lackawanna Leather,

Conovar, NC: September 7, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04152; Tyco Electronics,

Boyne City, MI: August 10, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04048; The Pietrafesa

Corp., a/k/a MS Pietrafesa LP,

Liverpool, NY: July 10, 1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04153; General Binding

Corp., Automated Finishing Div.,

Auburn Hills, MI: September 8,

1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04161; Evy of California,

Los Angeles, CA: September 13,

1999.

NAFTA–TAA–04103; Burlington House

Home Fashions, Stokesdale, NC:

August 21, 1999.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of October,

2000. Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210 during normal business hours

or will be mailed to persons who write

to the above address.

Dated: October 25, 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–28027 Filed 10–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2000–

52; Exemption Application No. L–10667, et

al.]

Grant of Individual Exemptions; Kwik

Kopy Corporation Employees Welfare

Benefit Plan and Trust (the Plan)

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits

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 (the Act) and/or

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the

Code).

Notices were published in the Federal

Register of the pendency before the

Department of proposals to grant such

exemptions. The notices set forth a

summary of facts and representations

contained in each application for

exemption and referred interested

persons to the respective applications

for a complete statement of the facts and

representations. The applications have

been available for public inspection at

the Department in Washington, DC. The

notices also invited interested persons

to submit comments on the requested

exemptions to the Department. In

addition the notices stated that any

interested person might submit a

written request that a public hearing be

held (where appropriate). The

applicants have represented that they

have complied with the requirements of

the notification to interested persons.

No public comments and no requests for

a hearing, unless otherwise stated, were

received by the Department.

The notices of proposed exemption

were issued and the exemptions are

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.

65332 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 1, 2000 / Notices

1Because the Plan is a voluntary employees’

beneficiary association trust, it is not qualified

under section 401 of the Code. Therefore, there is

no jurisdiction under Title II of the Act pursuant

to section 4975 of the Code. However, the

Department is assuming, for purposes of this final

exemption, that there is jurisdiction under Title I

of the Act pursuant to section 3(1) of the Act.

2For purposes of this exemption, all references to

AMHC are deemed to include references to AmerUs

Group Co. (AmerUs Group), the successor in

interest to AMHC.

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 exemptions are

administratively feasible;

(b) They are in the interests of the

plans and their participants and

beneficiaries; and

(c) They are protective of the rights of

the participants and beneficiaries of the

plans.

Kwik-Kopy Corporation Employees

Welfare Benefit Plan and Trust (the

Plan) Located in Cypress Creek, TX

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2000–52;

Exemption Application No. L–10667]

Exemption

The restrictions of sections 406(a),

406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act shall not

apply to the cash sale by the Plan of

certain recreational facilities (the

Recreational Facilities) to the

International Center for Entrepreneurial

Development, Inc., the parent of KwikKopy Corporation (Kwik-Kopy), the

Plan sponsor, and a party in interest

with respect to the Plan.1

This exemption is subject to the

following requirements:

(a) The proposed sale is a one-time

transaction for cash.

(b) The fair market value of the

Recreational Facilities has been

determined by qualified, independent

appraisers who propose to update their

valuation of the Recreational Facilities

on the date of the sale.

(c) On the date of the sale, the Plan

receives an amount which is equal to

the greater of the fair market value of the

Recreational Facilities or the Plan’s total

acquisition costs.

(d) The Plan pays no fees or

commissions in connection with the

proposed sale.

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

August 17, 2000 at 65 FR 50223.

Technical Correction

The Department notes that in the

notice of proposed exemption, the word

‘‘Copy,’’ as used in references to ‘‘KwikCopy Corporation’’ or ‘‘Kwik Copy,’’ has

been misspelled. For purposes of this

exemption, the Department wishes to

point out that correct spelling of the

term is ‘‘Kopy.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jan D. Broady, of the Department,

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

a toll-free number.)

American Mutual Holding Company

(AMHC) Located in Des Moines, IA

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2000–53;

Exemption Application No. D–10874]

Exemption

Section I. Covered Transactions

The restrictions of section 406(a) of

the Act and the sanctions resulting from

the application of section 4975 of the

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

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

effective September 20, 2000, to (1) the

receipt of certain common stock

(Common Stock) issued by AMHC,2 or

(2) the receipt of cash (Cash) or policy

credits (Policy Credits), by or on behalf

of a policyowner (the Eligible Member)

of AmerUs Life Insurance Company

(AmerUs Life), which is an employee

benefit plan (the Plan), other than a Plan

maintained by AMHC and/or its

affiliates, in exchange for such Eligible

Member’s membership interest in

AMHC, in accordance with the terms of

a plan of conversion (the Plan of

Conversion), implemented under Iowa

law.

This exemption is subject to the

following conditions set forth below in

Section II.

Section II. General Conditions

(a) The Plan of Conversion is subject

to approval, review and supervision by

the Iowa Commissioner of Insurance

(the Commissioner) and is implemented

in accordance with procedural and

substantive safeguards that are imposed

under Iowa law.

(b) The Commissioner reviews the

terms and options that are provided to

Eligible Members of AMHC as part of

such Commissioner’s review of the Plan

of Conversion and the Commissioner

approves the Plan of Conversion

following a determination that such

Plan is fair and equitable to Eligible

Members.

(c) Each Eligible Member has an

opportunity to vote to approve the Plan

of Conversion after full written

disclosure is given to the Eligible

Member by AMHC.

(d) Any determination to receive

Common Stock, Cash or Policy Credits

by an Eligible Member which is a Plan,

pursuant to the terms of the Plan of

Conversion, is made by one or more

Plan fiduciaries which are independent

of AMHC and its affiliates and neither

AMHC Group nor any of its affiliates

exercises any discretion or provides

investment advice, within the meaning

of 29 CFR 2510.3–21(c), with respect to

such decisions.

(e) After each Eligible Member

entitled to receive Common Stock is

allocated at least 20 shares, additional

consideration is allocated to Eligible

Members who own participating

policies based on actuarial formulas that

take into account each participating

policy’s contribution to the surplus and

asset valuation reserve of AMHC, which

formulas have been approved by the

Commission.

(f) All Eligible Members that are Plans

participate in the transactions on the

same basis as all Eligible Members that

are not Plans.

(g) No Eligible Member pays any

brokerage commissions or fees in

connection with their receipt of

Common Stock or Policy Credits or in

connection with the implementation of

the commission-free program.

(h) All of AmerUs Life’s policyowner

obligations remain in force and are not

affected by the Plan of Conversion.

Section III. Definitions

For purposes of this exemption:

(a) The term ‘‘AMHC’’ means

American Mutual Holding Company, its

successor, AmerUs Group, and any of

their affiliates, as defined in paragraph

(b) of this Section III.

(b) An ‘‘affiliate’’ of AMHC includes—

(1) Any person directly or indirectly

through one or more intermediaries,

controlling, controlled by, or under

common control with AMHC. (For

purposes of this paragraph, the term

‘‘control’’ means the power to exercise

a controlling influence over the

management or policies of a person

other than an individual.)

(2) Any officer, director or partner in

such person, and

(3) Any corporation or partnership of

which such person is an officer, director

or a 5 percent partner or owner.

(c) The term ‘‘Eligible Member’’

means a person who is (or, collectively,

persons who are) the owner(s) of one or

more ‘‘eligible policies’’ (the Eligible

Policy or Eligible Policies) on the

adoption date of the Plan of Conversion.

An ‘‘Eligible Policy’’ is defined as a

policy that has been in force for at least

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 1, 2000 / Notices 65333

one year prior to the adoption date and

that remains in force on the effective

date of the Plan of Conversion. A

mutual member of AMHC who owns

both an Eligible Policy and a policy that

is not an Eligible Policy will be an

Eligible Member only with respect to

the Eligible Policy.

(d) The term ‘‘Policy Credit’’ means

either an increase in the accumulation

account value (to which no surrender or

similar charge will be applied) or an

increase in a dividend accumulation on

a policy or contract issued by AmerUs

Life.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This exemption is

effective as of September 20, 2000.

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 that was published

on August 17, 2000 at 65 FR 50240.

Written Comments

The Department received nine written

comments with respect to the proposed

exemption. Eight comments were

submitted by Plan policyowners. The

ninth comment, which was submitted

by AmerUs Group, the successor to

AMHC, and also referred to herein as

‘‘the Applicant,’’ is intended to update

and clarify the proposal in certain areas.

Of the policyowner comments

received, four commenters expressed

their approval of the exemption. Three

commenters made general comments. Of

the comments falling into this category,

one comment was not germane to the

exemption request, while the two others

focused on either the commenter’s

retirement eligibility or the form of

demutualization consideration to be

received. (Both of these comments were

subsequently forwarded to the

Applicant for handling by appropriate

personnel.) Finally, another commenter

objected to the granting of the

exemption because he believed the

exemption would favor officers and

owners of AMHC at the expense of the

investors.

Following is a discussion of the

comment submitted by the objecting

policyowner as well as the Applicant’s

response to this comment. Also

discussed is the Applicant’s comment

and the Department’s responses to the

specific areas of the Applicant’s

concern.

Opposing Policyowner’s Comment

As discussed briefly above, the

commenter is of the view that the

Restructuring will not benefit investors

but will entirely benefit the officers and

the owners of AMHC. Therefore, the

commenter asserts that he is opposed to

the granting of the exemption.

In response to this comment, the

Applicant explains that the

Restructuring provides significant

benefits to the policyowners of AmerUS

Life, which are the ‘‘investors’’ in and

‘‘owners’’ of AMHC for periods prior to

the Restructuring, and does not serve to

benefit AMHC’s officers. The Applicant

notes that the Restructuring provides

AmerUS Life policyowners with

Common Stock, Cash or Policy Credits

in exchange for such policyowners’

illiquid membership interests in AMHC.

Thus, according to the Applicant,

policyowners may effectively convert

the economic value of their membership

interests into a marketable equity

position, cash or an enhanced return on

their AmerUs Life insurance products.

The Applicant states that this

realization of economic value occurs

while the underlying insurance or

annuity contacts remain in force,

without compromising any benefits,

guarantees or other rights and interests

(apart from membership in AMHC)

under the existing policies and

contracts. Additionally, the Applicant

points out that policyowners receiving

Common Stock as consideration for

their membership interests are expected

to benefit, along with other AMHC

shareholders, from the increased

financial flexibility that the organization

of AMHC as a stock company (rather

than a mutual company) will realize.

For these reasons, the Applicant

believes that the view expressed by the

commenter should not prevent the

Department from granting the final

exemption.

Applicant’s Comments

1. Status of the Restructuring and

Renaming of AMHC. The Applicant

states that the Plan of Conversion was

approved by the Commissioner on

August 1, 2000 and that the

restructuring (the Restructuring) of

AMHC occurred on September 20, 2000.

Specifically, on that date, the Applicant

explains that AmerUs Group liquidated

into AMHC and AMHC converted to a

stock corporation. In addition, the

Applicant states that AmerUs Life

Holdings, Inc. merged into AMHC, with

AMHC as the surviving corporation.

Further, the Applicant points out that

AmerUs Life (i.e., AmerUs Life

Insurance Company) became a wholly

owned subsidiary of AMHC and AMHC

was renamed ‘‘AmerUs Group Co.’’

Because of the foregoing changes, the

Applicant requests that the final

exemption reflect that: (a) The Plan of

Conversion was approved by the

Commissioner on August 1, 2000; (b)

the Restructuring occurred on

September 20, 2000; and (c) the

Applicant’s name was changed from

AMHC to ‘‘AmerUs Group Co.’’

The Department has noted these

modifications to the proposed

exemption. With respect to the

Applicant’s name change, the

Department has added a new footnote to

the operative language of the exemption

to clarify that, for purposes of this

exemption, all references to AMHC are

deemed to include references to

AmerUs Group, the successor in interest

to AMHC. The Department believes that

by incorporating references to AmerUs

Group into the definition of the term

‘‘AMHC,’’ the continuity of the

proposed and final exemptions will be

preserved and reader confusion will be

minimized. In addition, the Department

has made a corresponding change to

Section III(a) of the final exemption in

order that it will read as follows:

For purposes of this exemption:

(a) The term ‘‘AMHC’’ means American

Mutual Holding Company, its successor,

AmerUs Group, and any of their affiliates, as

defined in paragraph (b) of this Section III.

2. Effective Date of Exemption and

Use of the Escrow Arrangement. When

the exemption application was initially

filed, the Applicant explains that the

timing and sequence of events for the

Restructuring and the final exemption

were uncertain. For this reason, the

Applicant notes that the exemption

application indicated that ‘‘[i]n the

event that a final exemption ha[d] not

been granted by the Department as of

the effective date of the Restructuring,

consideration otherwise payable to the

Plans [would] be held in an interestbearing escrow account, at the expense

of AMHC, pending the grant of the final

exemption.’’ The Applicant also noted

that a subsequent submission to the

Department stated more definitely that

an escrow arrangement would be

established.

However, because the publication of

the proposed exemption was so close to

the effective date of the Restructuring,

the Applicant states that the use of the

escrow arrangement became potentially

burdensome. If an escrow arrangement

were utilized, the Applicant explains

that it would have been in place for a

brief period of time and all of the fixed

costs of such an arrangement would be

have been borne by the Applicant.

In lieu of establishing an escrow

account, the Applicant represents that it

decided to distribute the

demutualization consideration between

October 18–24, 2000, which occurrence

would be prior to the granting of the

final exemption. Therefore, the

65334 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 1, 2000 / Notices

3AMHC’s Plan of Conversion refers to ‘‘Owners’’

of ‘‘Policies’’ issued by AmerUs Life or

‘‘policyowners’’ while the Iowa Code refers to

‘‘policyholders.’’ For purposes of this exemption,

the Department notes that both terms have the same

meaning.

4Because Mr. Lobenherz is the sole owner of the

Plan sponsor and the only participant in the Plan,

there is no jurisdiction under Title I of the

Applicant requests that the final

exemption be made retroactive to

September 20, 2000, the date of the

Restructuring. Additionally, the

Applicant requests that the final

exemption not be conditioned on

AMHC’s use of an escrow arrangement.

In response to this comment, the

Department has made the final

exemption effective as of September 20,

2000. This text appears in Section I of

the final exemption, in the operative

language, as well as in the section

captioned EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Department notes that while the

failure to describe the escrow

arrangement in the Summary of Facts

and Representations (the Summary) may

have been due to an oversight, the

Applicant counsel subsequently

informed the staff, in telephone

communication, of the time and

monetary problems that would result if

such an arrangement were ever adopted.

Therefore, the Applicant requested that

the exemption be made retroactive to

the date of the Restructuring. The

Department has complied with this

request and it has not conditioned the

final exemption on AMHC’s use of the

escrow arrangement.

3. Identification of Insurance

Company. In the operative language,

Section I of the proposed exemption

refers to ‘‘a policyowner of AMHC.’’

Similarly, Representation 18(g) of the

Summary refers to ‘‘AMHC’s

policyholder obligations.’’ As indicated

in the exemption application, the

Applicant states that AMHC was a

mutual holding company in which the

policyowners of AmerUs Life held

mutual membership interests. However,

the Applicant believes that the present

wording of the proposed exemption

could result in some confusion as to the

actual policyowners covered by the

exemption because there were no

policyowners of AMHC. Therefore, the

Applicant requests that Section I of the

final exemption replace the phrase ‘‘a

policyowner of AMHC’’ with the phrase

‘‘a policyowner of AmerUs Life’’ and

that Representation 18(g) of the

Summary refer to ‘‘policyholder

obligations of AmerUs Life’’ rather than

‘‘AMHC’s policyholder obligations.’’

In response to this comment, the

Department has modified the operative

language of Section I of the final

exemption to reflect this change. In

addition, the Department has deleted

the reference to ‘‘AMHC’s policyholder

obligations’’ in section I(h) of the

proposed exemption and has substituted

the phrase ‘‘AmerUs Life’s policyowner

obligations.’’ Further, the Department

notes the modification to Representation

18(g) of the Summary.

4. Approval of Plan of Conversion by

Voting Members. The fourth full

paragraph of Representation 9 of the

Summary states that ‘‘Section 508B.6 of

the Iowa Code requires that the plan of

conversion be approved by two-thirds of

the policyholders 3 of the mutual

company who are entitled to vote on the

conversion.’’ The Applicant represents

that Iowa law does not require twothirds approval by the members who are

eligible to vote. Rather, it requires twothirds approval by the members who do

vote. The Applicant notes that this

matter was misstated in the exemption

application.

Therefore, to correct this error, the

Applicant requests that the sentence be

revised to read as follows: ‘‘Section

508B.6 of the Iowa Code requires that

the plan of conversion be approved by

two-thirds of the policyowners of the

mutual company voting on the

conversion.’’

In response, the Department notes this

revision to the Summary.

5. Scope of Determination. Section

II(b) of the proposed exemption and

Representation 18(b) of the Summary

condition the exemption on the

Commissioner determining that the Plan

of Conversion ‘‘is fair and equitable to

Eligible Members and is not detrimental

to the general public.’’ The Applicant

states that although Iowa law requires

the Commissioner to determine that the

Plan of Conversion is ‘‘fair and

equitable’’ to policyowners, it does not

require that the Commissioner make a

determination regarding the effect on

the general public.

The Applicant explains that under

Section 508B.7 of the Iowa Code, the

full legal standard for the

Commissioner’s approval of the Plan of

Conversion is a determination that ‘‘the

plan complies with all provisions of

law, the plan is fair and equitable to the

mutual company and its policyholders,

and that the reorganized company will

have the amount of capital and surplus

deemed by the commissioner to be

reasonably necessary for its future

solvency.’’ Therefore, the Applicant

requests that Section II(b) of the final

exemption and Representation 18(b) of

the Summary be amended to conform

with the Iowa Code.

In response to this comment, the

Department has revised Section II(b) of

the final exemption to read as follows:

(b) The Commissioner reviews the terms

and options that are provided to Eligible

Members of AMHC as part of such

Commissioner’s review of the Plan of

Conversion and the Commissioner approves

the Plan of Conversion following a

determination that such Plan is fair and

equitable to Eligible Members.

In addition, the Department notes the

modification to Representation 18(b) of

the Summary.

6. Filing of Indianapolis Life Plan of

Conversion with the Commissioner. In

Representation 10 of the Summary,

Footnote 36 of the proposed exemption

states that ‘‘[i]t is anticipated that a plan

of conversion for the demutualization of

ILICo will be filed with the Indiana

Insurance Commissioner in August

2000.’’ The Applicant wishes to clarify

that this filing was actually made in

September 2000. Accordingly, the

Department notes this clarification.

For further information regarding the

comments and other matters discussed

herein, interested persons are

encouraged to obtain copies of the

exemption application file (Exemption

Application No. D–10874) the

Department is maintaining in this case.

The complete application file, as well as

all supplemental submissions received

by the Department, are made available

for public inspection in the Public

Documents Room of the Pension and

Welfare Benefits Administration, Room

N–5638, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210.

Accordingly, after giving full

consideration to the entire record,

including the written comments, the

Department has decided to grant the

exemption subject to the modifications

and clarifications described above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jan D. Broady of the Department,

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

a toll-free number.)

Richard E. Lobenherz Profit Sharing

Plan (the Plan) Located in Charlevoix,

Michigan

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2000–54;

Exemption Application No. D–10895]

Exemption

The sanctions resulting from the

application of section 4975 of the Code,

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

through (E) of the Code, shall not apply

to the proposed sale of certain

unimproved real property (the Land) by

the Plan to Richard E. Lobenherz (Mr.

Lobenherz), a disqualified person with

respect to the Plan,4 provided that the

following conditions are satisfied:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 1, 2000 / Notices 65335

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(the Act) pursuant to 29 CFR 2510.3–3(b). However,

there is jurisdiction under Title II of the Act

pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.

(a) The proposed sale will be a onetime transaction for cash;

(b) The Plan will receive the current

fair market value for the Land

established at the time of the sale by a

qualified, independent appraiser;

(c) The Plan will pay no real estate

expenses or commissions associated

with the sale; and

(d) The sale will provide the Plan

with greater liquidity and further

diversification of the Plan’s assets.

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

September 22, 2000 at 65 FR 57396.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ekaterina A. Uzlyan of the Department

at (202) 219–8883. (This is not a toll-free

number).

General Information

The attention of interested persons is

directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the

subject of an exemption under section

408(a) of the Act and/or section

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

a fiduciary or other party in interest or

disqualified person from certain other

provisions to which the exemptions

does not apply and the general fiduciary

responsibility provisions of section 404

of the Act, which among other things

require a fiduciary to discharge his

duties respecting the plan solely in the

interest of the participants and

beneficiaries of the plan and in a

prudent fashion in accordance with

section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does

it affect the requirement of section

401(a) of the Code that the plan must

operate for the exclusive benefit of the

employees of the employer maintaining

the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) These exemptions are

supplemental to and not in derogation

of, any other provisions of the Act and/

or the Code, including statutory or

administrative exemptions and

transactional rules. Furthermore, the

fact that a transaction is subject to an

administrative or statutory exemption is

not dispositive of whether the

transaction is in fact a prohibited

transaction; and

(3) The availability of these

exemptions is subject to the express

condition that the material facts and

representations contained in each

application accurately describes all

material terms of the transaction which

is the subject of the exemption.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of

October, 2000.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 00–27916 Filed 10–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. 2000–2 CARP CD 93–97]

Distribution of 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996

and 1997 Cable Royalty Funds

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Announcement of the schedule

for the proceeding.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is announcing the

schedule for the 180-day arbitration

period for the Phase II distribution of

the 1997 cable royalty funds for the

syndicated programming category.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All hearings and meetings

for the Phase II cable distribution

proceeding shall take place in the James

Madison Memorial Building, Room LM–

414, First and Independence Avenue,

SE., Washington, DC 20540.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

William J. Roberts, Jr., Senior Attorney

for Compulsory Licenses, P.O. Box

70977, Southwest Station, Washington,

D.C. 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380.

Telefax: (202) 252–3423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

251.11(b) of the regulations governing

the Copyright Arbitration Royalty

Panels (‘‘CARPs’’), 37 CFR subchapter B,

provides that:

At the beginning of each proceeding, the

CARP shall develop the original schedule of

the proceeding which shall be published in

the Federal Register at least seven calendar

days in advance of the first meeting. Such

announcement shall state the times, dates,

and place of the meetings, the testimony to

be heard, whether any of the meetings, or any

portion of a meeting, is to be closed, and if

so, which ones, and the name and telephone

number of the person to contact for further

information.

This notice fulfills the requirements

of § 251.11(b) for the proceeding to

determine the Phase II distribution of

the 1997 cable royalty funds for the

syndicated programming category.

By Order dated January 12, 2000, the

Library consolidated all Phase II

controversies in Docket Nos. 96–7 CARP

CD 93–94, 97–2 CARP CD 95, 98–2

CARP CD 96 and 99–5 CARP CD 97 into

a single distribution proceeding and

announced the precontroversy

discovery schedule for a Phase II

distribution proceeding in the

syndicated programming category. All

controversies in this category have

reached settlement, except for a dispute

between certain claimants represented

by the Independent Producers Group

(‘‘IPG’’), and certain claimants

represented by the Motion Picture

Association of America, Inc. (‘‘Program

Suppliers’’), for distribution of the 1997

royalty funds collected under the cable

statutory license of the Copyright Act.

17 U.S.C. 111.

On October 12, 2000, the Office

published a notice initiating the 180-day

arbitration period for this proceeding.

65 FR 60690 (October 12, 2000). On

October 17, 2000, the parties to this

proceeding met with the arbitrators for

the purposes of discussing resolution of

certain issues designated to the CARP

by the Copyright Office during the

discovery period of the proceeding and

of setting a schedule for this proceeding.

At that meeting, the parties and the

arbitrators agreed to the following

briefing and hearing schedule:

Document production (if ordered)—October

27, 2000

Filing of Opposition to IPG motion to remove

designation of ‘‘highly confidential’’ and

related relief—November 2, 2000

Filing of Follow-up discovery requests

related to October 27 document

production—November 3, 2000

Filing of Response to follow-up discovery

requests—November 8, 2000

Filing of Reply to Opposition to IPG motion

to remove designation of ‘‘highly

confidential’’ and related relief—November

9, 2000

Filing of Motions to dismiss and/or to

strike—November 20, 2000

Filing of Oppositions to Motions to dismiss

and/or strike—December 1, 2000

Filing of Reply to Opposition to Motions to

dismiss and/or strike—December 8, 2000

Oral arguments on all motions regarding

document production, discovery,

protective orders, and all motions to

dismiss and/or strike—December 11–12,

2000

Opening Statements for both parties—

January 8, 2001

Presentation of Direct Cases:—January 8–12,

2001

Witness for Program Suppliers: Marsha E.

Kessler

Witness for Independent Producers Group:

Raul Galaz

Filing of Written Rebuttal Testimony—

January 26, 2001

Filing of Post-hearing discovery requests—

January 31, 2001

Filing of Responses to post-hearing discovery

requests—February 2, 2001

Completion of document production—

February 5, 2001