68092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 

servicing agencies. It is used as an aid 

for grant recipients to report the status 

of their expenditures. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: The estimated number of 

respondents is 15, 304, and the 

estimated time for an average 

respondent to reply is 30 minutes. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are approximately 

30,608 annual burden hours associated 

with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building , 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20530.

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

Brenda E. Dyer, 

Department Clearance Officer, Department of 

Justice.

[FR Doc. 05–22274 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

[Exemption Application No. D–11246] 

Adoption of Amendment to Prohibited 

Transaction Exemption (PTE) 99–29 

Involving Bankers Trust Company, 

Deutsche Bank Trust Company 

Americas (DBTCA), and Deutsche 

Bank, AG

SUMMARY: This document contains an 

amendment to PTE 99–29 (64 FR 40623, 

July 27, 1999), an exemption granted to 

Bankers Trust Company. PTE 99–29 

permits DBTCA (formerly known as 

Banker’s Trust Company) to continue to 

function as a qualified professional asset 

manager (QPAM) under PTE 84–14 (49 

FR 9494, March 13, 1994). The 

amendment affects participants and 

beneficiaries and fiduciaries of 

employee benefit plans to which 

DBTCA served as custodian.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendment is 

effective as of January 31, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Padams Lavigne, Office of 

Exemption Determinations, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, US 

Department of Labor, Washington, DC 

20210 at (202) 693–8540. This is not a 

toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 3, 2005, the Department 

published a notice of proposed 

exemption that would amend PTE 99–

29. The amendment was requested in an 

application filed on behalf of DBTCA. 

DBTCA is a New York banking, 

fiduciary, record keeping custodial, 

brokerage and investment services to 

corporations, institutions, governments, 

employee benefit plans, governmental 

retirement plans, and private investors 

worldwide, Deutsche Bank, AG 

indirectly wholly owns DBTCA. 

The proposed amendment invited 

interested persons to submit comments 

to the Department on or before March 

21, 2005. On February 17, 2005, the 

applicant notified the Department that 

the names and addresses of certain 

individuals who may be entitled to 

receive notice of the proposed 

amendment were contained in records 

that were destroyed by the events that 

occurred on September 11, 2001. As a 

result, the applicant did not notify 

interested persons within the three-day 

period specified in the proposed 

amendment. The applicant requested 

that the comment period be extended to 

ensure that interested persons would 

have a sufficient amount of time in 

which to provide their comments to the 

Department. In addition, the applicant 

stated that it had the names and 

addresses of custody clients of DBTCA 

as of December 31, 2002. The applicant 

believed that this list of clients would 

reasonably include all parties that 

would have an interest in the proposed 

amendment. The Department concurred 

with the applicant. Accordingly, on 

March 29, 2005, the applicant sent 

notice to all custody clients of DBTCA 

as of December 31, 2002. This notice 

informed interested persons of their 

right to comment on the proposed 

amendment, and informed these 

persons that comments were due to the 

Department on or before May 27, 2005.

Written Comments 

The Department received one written 

comment. No requests for a public 

hearing were received. The comment 

was submitted by the applicant who 

wished to clarify that check ledgers, 

cancelled checks and class action 

records that are described in the notice 

of proposed amendment continue to be 

the property of the applicant, but such 

materials can only be effectively 

searched using State Street’s record 

keeping systems. In this regard, State 

Street currently serves as inquiry 

response and information agent for the 

applicant, and maintains information on 

its systems. The applicant relies upon 

State Street to answer inquiries related 

to these records. Under the terms of the 

applicant’s arrangement with State 

Street, State Street may resign from its 

inquiry response and information 

retrieval duties on or after April 28, 

2007. The applicant represents that in 

the event of State Street’s resignation, 

the applicant will locate another agent 

who will create a similar retrieval 

system, or re-establish an in-house 

information retrieval system. Under 

either arrangement, records will be 

maintained in accordance with the 

terms specified under the amendment to 

PTE 99–29. 

For further information regarding the 

comment or other matters discussed 

herein, interested persons are 

encouraged to obtain copies of the 

exemption application file (Exemption 

Application No. D–11246). The 

complete application file and all 

supplemental submissions received by 

the Department, are available for public 

inspection in the Public Disclosure 

Room of the Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Room N–1513, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Accordingly, after giving full 

consideration to the entire record, 

including the written comment 

received, the Department has decided to 

adopt the amendment to PTE 99–29. 

General Information 

The attention of interested persons is 

directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the 

subject of an exemption granted under 

section 408(a) of the Act and/or 

4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 (the Code) does not relieve a 

fiduciary or other party in interest with 

respect to a plan to which the 

exemption is applicable from certain 

other provisions of the Act and/or the 

Code. These provisions include any 

prohibited transaction provisions to 

which the exemption does not apply 

and the general fiduciary provisions of 

section 404 of the Act which, among 

other things, requires a fiduciary to 

discharge his or her duties respecting 

the plan solely in the interests 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) The exemption is supplemental to, 

and not in derogation of, any other 

provisions of the Act and/or Code, 

including statutory or administrative 

exemptions and transitional rules. 

Furthermore, the fact that a transaction 

is subject to an administrative or 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 68093

statutory exemption is not dispositive of 

whether the transaction is in fact a 

prohibited transaction; 

(3) The availability of this exemption 

is subject to the express condition that 

the material facts and representations 

contained in the application are true 

and complete and accurately describe 

all material terms of the transaction 

which is the subject of this exemption. 

In the case of continuing transactions, if 

any of the material facts or 

representations described in the 

application change, the exemption will 

cease to apply as of the date of such 

change. In the event of any such change, 

an application for a new exemption 

must be made to the Department; and 

(4) Under section 408(a) of ERISA, the 

Department finds 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 such plan. 

Exemption 

Accordingly, PTE 99–29 is amended 

under the authority of section 408(a) of 

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

Code, and in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 

2570, subpart B (55 32836, August 10, 

1990), as set forth below:

Section I is amended to read as 

follows: ‘‘Bankers Trust Company (now 

known as DBTCA) shall not be 

precluded from functioning as 

‘‘qualified professional asset manager’’

pursuant to Prohibited Transaction 

Exemption 84–14 (49 FR 9494, March 

13, 1994) (PTE 94–14) for the period 

beginning on the date of sentencing 

with respect to the charges to which 

Bankers Trust Company pled guilty on 

March 11, 1999 and ending July 27, 

2009, solely because of a failure to 

satisfy section I(g) of PTE 84–14 as a 

result of the conviction of Bankers Trust 

Company for felonies described in the 

March 11, 1999 felony information (the 

Information) entered in the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of New 

York, provided that:’’

Section I(c) is amended to read as 

follows: ‘‘The custody operations that 

were part of Bankers Trust Company at 

the time of the March 11, 1999 

information, and which have 

subsequently been reorganized as part of 

Global Institutional Services (GIS), are 

subject to an annual examination of its 

abandoned property and escheatment 

policies, procedures and practices by an 

independent public accounting firm. the 

examination required by this condition 

shall determine whether the written 

procedures adopted by Bankers Trust 

Company are properly designed to 

assure compliance with the 

requirements of ERISA. The annual 

examination shall specifically require a 

determination by the auditor as to 

whether the Bank has developed and 

adopted internal policies and 

procedures that achieve appropriate 

control objectives and shall include a 

test of a representative sample of 

transactions, fifty percent of which must 

involve ERISA covered plans, to 

determine operational compliance with 

such policies and procedures. The 

auditor shall issue a written report 

describing the steps performed by the 

auditor during the course of its 

examination. The report shall include 

the auditor’s specific findings and 

recommendations. This requirement 

shall continue to be applicable to the 

dustody operations that were part of 

Bankers Trust Company as of March 11, 

1999, notwithstanding any subsequent 

reorganization of the custody operation 

function during the term of the 

exemption. Such audit requirements 

shall be applicable for any year or part 

thereof in which DBTCA held ERISA 

covered plan assets in custody.’’

Section III(a) is amended to read as 

follows: ‘‘For purposes of this 

exemption, the term ‘Bankers Trust 

Company’ includes Bankers Trust 

Company, and any entity that was 

affiliated with Bankers Trust Company 

prior to the date of the acquisition of 

Bankers Trust Corporation by Duetsche 

Bank AG, other than BT Alex. Brown 

Incorporated and its subsidiaries. This 

term also refers to Deutsche Bank Trust 

Company Americas (DBTCA).’’

For a more complete statement of 

facts and representations supporting the 

Department’s decision to grant PTE 99–

29, refer to the proposed exemption (64 

FR 30360, July 7, 1999), and the grant 

notice (64 FR 30360, June 7, 1999), and 

the grant notice (64 FR 40623, July 27, 

1999). For a more complete statement of 

fact and representations supporting the 

Department’s decision to amend PTE 

99–29, refer to the notice of proposed 

amendment to PTE 99–29 (70 FR 5699, 

February 3, 2005).

Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of 

October, 2005. 

Ivan L. Strasfeld, 

Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, 

Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 05–21962 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4520–29–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–57,143] 

ACCPAC International, Inc., Customer 

Support, Santa Rosa, CA; Notice of 

Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

By letter of August 19, 2005, a 

petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance, applicable to workers of 

ACCPAC International, Inc., Customer 

Support, Santa Rosa, California. The 

denial notice was signed on June 24, 

2005, and published in the Federal 

Register on July 20, 2005 (70 FR 41793). 

The investigation revealed that the 

petitioning workers of this firm or 

subdivision do not produce an article 

within the meaning of Section 222 of 

the Act. 

The petitioner contends that the 

Department erred in its interpretation of 

work performed at the subject facility as 

a service and further conveys that the 

workers of the subject firm supported 

the production of the software during 

the pre-production phases. The 

petitioner further conveys that the 

software was recorded on CD media or 

floppy diskettes for further distribution 

to customers. 

A company official was contacted for 

clarification in regard to the nature of 

the work performed at the subject 

facility. The official stated the workers 

of the subject firm provided 

development, marketing, sales, 

professional services, administrative, 

training and technical support of the 

ACCPAC software. The technical 

support representatives of the subject 

firm provided post-sale technical 

assistance, troubleshooting and training 

via telephone to ACCPAC customers 

and business partners. In addition, the 

workers of the subject firm provided 

some support to software development 

prior to its release on gold CDs. 

However, the physical gold CDs are not 

sold to customers, but rather represent 

a master copy of the software, which in 

its turn is sent for mass-production to an 

independent non-affiliated party vendor 

for further duplication on CD–ROMs, 

floppy diskettes or paper. The official 

supported the information previously 

provided by the subject firm that 

software created at the subject facility is 

not mass-produced on any media device 

by the subject firm for further 

duplication and distribution to