Comment on FR Doc # 2012-15072

As a preliminary reaction, I have a small technical comment. The condition in proposed (xii)(C) would require notice to "each" affected party. I recommend lightening that up so that failure to provide notice to one affected party would not appear to automatically invalidate the amendment. This might be done in many ways, but one way would be to use the plural (notice to "affected parties") and to indicate in the regulation -- or the preamble -- that the condition would be satisfied where the notice has been provided (1) in the case of notice by a federal bankruptcy court, under rules for notice established by that court and (2) in other cases, to sufficient affected parties under rules like those in ERISA section 204(h) for when failure to provide notice causes the amendment to be invalid. Thanks. Bill