What Is PTE 96-62 (EXPRO) for a 401(k) Plan?

PTE 96-62, commonly called EXPRO, is not a transaction exemption that a 401(k) plan can invoke on its own after checking a list of conditions. It is an expedited Department of Labor authorization process for a prospective prohibited transaction that closely tracks recent DOL precedent. The applicant still files with DOL, identifies the exact relief needed, demonstrates protective safeguards, notifies interested persons and waits for final authorization before relying on the exemption.^[1][2][3][6]

The governing document is a class exemption. The relief it produces is effectively transaction-specific.

A plan that misses that distinction can close too early and have no exemption at all.

Why Did DOL Create EXPRO?

Individual exemption applications can consume substantial time because DOL evaluates the transaction, the prohibited provisions involved, valuation, party relationships, fiduciary conflicts and participant protections.^[7][10]

Many applications are not genuinely novel. DOL has repeatedly seen familiar structures involving loans, leases, related-party property sales, captive insurance arrangements and securities transactions.^[3][4][5]

Once the Department has approved the same basic structure several times with materially similar protections, rebuilding the policy analysis from zero creates little value.

PTE 96-62 was designed for that category of case: routine, prospective and supported by recent precedent.^[1][2]

EXPRO Is Best Understood as Precedent-Based Individual Relief

An ordinary class exemption works without a transaction-specific DOL authorization when the transaction fits its published scope and conditions.

EXPRO works differently.

The applicant must show that the proposal matches established DOL precedent closely enough to justify expedited treatment. DOL still decides whether the comparison works and whether the safeguards are adequate.^[2][3]

The plan does not get relief merely because counsel concludes that the precedent looks close. The Department controls that determination.

EXPRO Is for Prospective Transactions

DOL describes the program as an expedited route for prospective transactions.^[1][3][6]

That word matters.

If a sponsor already caused the plan to sell property to the employer, the transaction is no longer prospective. Filing after closing does not convert it into one.

The consequences can involve correction, restoration, excise-tax analysis under Code Section 4975, another exemption strategy or enforcement risk.^[12]

EXPRO is a planning tool, not a routine retroactive cure.

Example: Plan Wants to Sell Illiquid Real Estate to the Employer

Assume a pension plan owns a parcel that has become difficult to market.

The employer offers:

$3.5 million.

Because the employer is a party in interest, a direct sale can implicate ERISA Section 406(a).^[9]

Counsel finds two recently granted DOL individual exemptions involving:

• cash sales of plan real estate
• sponsor or affiliate purchasers
• independent appraisals
• independent fiduciary approval
• no plan-paid commission
• purchase prices no lower than fair market value.

That fact pattern may be a strong EXPRO candidate.

It is not automatically exempt. The precedents simply give DOL an established policy template.

Section I Covers Specified Party-in-Interest Relief

Section I provides relief from specified restrictions under ERISA Section 406(a) and the parallel Code provisions in Section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D), assuming the EXPRO conditions are satisfied.^[2][9][12]

Those provisions reach transactions such as:

• sales or exchanges
• leases
• loans or extensions of credit
• furnishing goods, services or facilities
• certain transfers involving plan assets.

The requested relief has to match the legal problem.

An earlier exemption for a lease does not automatically establish precedent for fiduciary self-dealing relief.

Section II Can Reach Fiduciary Conflict Restrictions

Section II addresses specified restrictions under ERISA Section 406(b) and parallel Code provisions in Section 4975(c)(1)(E) and (F).^[2][9][12]

That is a sharper conflict category.

Section 406(b) addresses conduct such as a fiduciary:

• dealing with plan assets for its own interest
• acting for a party whose interests are adverse to the plan
• receiving consideration from a party dealing with the plan.^[9]

EXPRO can provide Section 406(b) relief, but the precedents and safeguards must support that exact relief.

The First Gate Is the Precedent Test

PTE 96-62 gives applicants two ways to establish qualifying precedent.^[1][2]

Route A — Two recent individual exemptions

Use at least two DOL individual exemptions that:

• are substantially similar to the proposed transaction
• provide relief from the same restriction
• were granted within the 60 months ending on the filing date.^[2]

Route B — One individual exemption plus one EXPRO authorization

Use:

• one DOL individual exemption granted within the prior 120 months
• one Authorized Transaction under PTE 96-62 that received final authorization within the prior 60 months.^[2]

The second route was added in 2002.

Why Did DOL Add the Alternative Route?

EXPRO's own success created a precedent problem.

As routine cases moved away from conventional individual exemptions and into expedited authorizations, fewer new individual exemptions were being issued in those categories. Applicants could have difficulty finding two recent individual exemptions even though DOL kept approving essentially the same transaction through EXPRO.^[2]

The 2002 amendment allowed one recent final authorization to serve as part of the precedent chain.

That preserved the expedited program without letting precedent become indefinitely stale.

The Two Routes Use Different Lookback Periods

The dates run backward from the filing date of the new written submission.^[2]

A precedent can be substantively excellent and still age out before filing.

That makes application timing part of the legal strategy.

An Authorized Transaction Must Have Final Authorization

The PTE defines an Authorized Transaction by reference to a transaction that received final authorization under the EXPRO process within the applicable 60-month period.^[2]

A transaction that has reached only tentative status does not qualify.

This distinction matters when applicants are building a precedent chain from a recent expedited case.

The earlier matter must have completed the notice, comment and final-authorization process.

"Substantially Similar" Is a Demanding Standard

The exemption defines substantially similar as being alike in all material respects, with that judgment made by DOL in its sole discretion.^[2]

That is stronger than saying the cases share:

• an asset class
• a party type
• a transaction label.

A sponsor may see two cases as identical because both involve a real-estate sale to an employer.

DOL may see material differences in:

• valuation
• financing
• percentage of plan assets involved
• independent fiduciary protections
• purchaser relationship
• market testing
• commissions
• closing conditions.

The strongest application explains every difference. It does not hide them.

Similarity Should Be Built as a Matrix

A transaction comparison is more useful when it forces the applicant to line up the protections.

The legal question is not whether every word matches.

It is whether any difference changes the participant-protection analysis.

A Difference Can Be Material Even If It Appears Better for the Plan

Suppose both precedents required cash at closing.

The new transaction proposes:

• 70% cash
• 30% five-year employer note.

The note pays a generous interest rate.

The applicant may view the financing as favorable.

DOL has to consider new risks:

• employer credit
• collection
• continuing party-in-interest exposure
• note valuation
• remedies after default.

The difference can be material even when projected return improves.

EXPRO is about precedent fit, not merely better headline economics.

The Proposal Must Present Minimal Participant Risk

Sections I and II use an exacting statutory-style standard: the proposed transaction must present little, if any, risk of abuse or loss to participants and beneficiaries.^[2]

The submission must make that showing specifically.

This is why EXPRO is a poor fit for a novel or finely balanced conflict.

A case requiring DOL to invent a new protective structure belongs closer to the conventional individual-exemption process.

Low Risk Does Not Mean Low Dollar Value

A $50,000 self-dealing transaction can present substantial abuse risk.

A $50 million sale may present comparatively little abuse risk if the protections are strong.

Useful safeguards can include:

• independent fiduciary review
• independent appraisal
• competitive bidding
• cash consideration
• no plan-paid commission
• collateral
• market-price formula
• termination rights
• continuing monitoring.

Risk is structural.

Transaction size is only one input.

Fair Market Value Alone May Be Insufficient

Assume the employer will buy plan property at an independently stated fair market value.

That sounds protective.

Now add these facts:

• employer selected the appraiser
• appraiser's fee increases if the sale closes
• plan has no independent fiduciary
• property equals 35% of plan assets
• sponsor needs the property to solve an urgent corporate problem.

Price addresses one risk.

It does not answer independence, process, purpose, concentration or conflict.

The applicant needs the complete safeguard architecture reflected in the precedents.

A Good EXPRO Candidate Has Four Kinds of Similarity

The word similar is too vague for a useful screening test. Before spending heavily on an application, counsel can separate precedent fit into four categories.

1. Legal similarity

The earlier cases should address the same prohibited-transaction provisions the applicant needs DOL to relieve. A precedent that solved only Section 406(a) does not establish a Section 406(b) conflict model merely because the commercial transaction looks alike.^[2][9]

2. Economic similarity

Compare how value moves between the plan and the related party:

• cash versus financing
• fixed price versus formula price
• one-time sale versus continuing lease
• secured versus unsecured credit
• immediate payment versus deferred consideration.

A change in payment mechanics can introduce a risk that the older exemption never had to solve.

3. Fiduciary similarity

Compare who protects the plan and what authority that person has. Relevant differences include:

• independent fiduciary at closing only
• independent fiduciary for the entire term
• appraisal reviewer
• bidding authority
• power to reject the transaction
• enforcement responsibility after closing.

If precedent depended on an independent fiduciary with continuing enforcement duties, replacing that person with a consultant who only gives a fairness opinion is not a minor drafting change.

4. Procedural similarity

Compare the mechanics DOL relied upon:

• appraisal timing
• market exposure
• notice
• transaction caps
• commissions
• collateral
• renewal rights
• termination protections.

A case can look economically similar while losing the procedural safeguard that made the earlier exemption acceptable.

A Practical Pre-Filing Scorecard

This is not a DOL scoring formula. It is a screening tool. A proposal with several weak-fit rows is probably being pushed into EXPRO because the expedited timetable is attractive, not because the precedent is genuinely close.

That is the wrong reason to choose the process.

The Submission Includes the Full Individual-Exemption Information Set

Expedited does not mean abbreviated to a one-page request.

Section III requires the information otherwise required for an individual exemption application under 29 CFR Part 2570 Subpart B.^[2][7]

Current procedures require detailed information concerning matters such as:

• applicant
• affected plans
• parties in interest
• transaction terms
• governing documents
• plan assets involved
• fiduciaries
• reasons for the transaction
• safeguards
• requested legal relief.^[7]

EXPRO adds its own submission requirements on top of that base.

Current Filing Can Be Electronic

Current 29 CFR 2570.36 permits an exemption application to be filed electronically with EBSA's Office of Exemption Determinations using the method specified in the regulation.^[8]

When an application is filed electronically, a duplicate paper submission is not required under the current rule.^[8]

That is an example of why a 2026 application should not rely only on the mailing instructions contained in older exemption materials.

The substantive PTE and current procedural regulation have to be read together.

EXPRO Adds Four Core Submission Components

The expedited submission adds four practical pieces to the ordinary application package.^[2]

1. Written declaration

The applicant separately declares its intent to demonstrate compliance with PTE 96-62.

2. Low-risk showing

The filing explains specifically why participant exposure to abuse or economic loss is minimal.

3. Precedent comparison

The applicant compares the proposal to the qualifying precedents and explains why each difference is not material.

4. Draft notice

The submission includes a complete and accurate draft notice to interested persons and the intended distribution method.^[2]

These are not formality boxes.

They are the information DOL needs to decide whether expedited treatment is justified.

Section 406(b) Cases Can Require an Independent Fiduciary

When the applicant seeks Section II relief and the relevant precedent required an independent fiduciary, the new transaction must preserve that protection.^[2]

The independent fiduciary reviews the transaction and determines whether it is:

• in the plan's interests
• protective of participants and beneficiaries.^[2]

The fiduciary also represents the plan in executing the transaction.

For an ongoing transaction, the fiduciary role continues after closing.

The Independent Fiduciary Is Not a Ceremonial Signer

For a continuing arrangement, the independent fiduciary may be required to:

• monitor performance
• enforce contractual obligations
• protect the plan's remedies
• confirm on an ongoing basis that the arrangement continues to serve the plan.^[2]

That changes the role materially.

A five-year related-party lease cannot be protected by one signature on closing day if the precedent's safeguards require ongoing oversight.

Example: Five-Year Lease to a Party in Interest

Assume a plan leases office property to a related employer.

The independent fiduciary approves:

• market rent
• five-year term
• annual escalators
• security deposit
• default remedies.

Two years later, the tenant stops paying full rent.

The sponsor asks the plan to waive the arrears.

The fiduciary cannot treat the original authorization as permission to ignore the default.

The continuing arrangement has changed, and the fiduciary remains responsible for enforcing the protections on which the exemption depends.^[2][3]

The Application Must Explain the Fiduciary's Independence

For the Section II route, the submission supplies additional information concerning the independent fiduciary.^[2]

That includes matters such as:

• identity
• relationship to parties in interest
• basis for independence
• written interests-and-protection determination
• agreement to represent the plan
• replacement procedure if the fiduciary cannot continue.

A title is not evidence.

Compensation, ownership, business relationships and other economic ties can matter to independence.

Tentative Authorization Has a 45-Day Clock

Tentative authorization can occur on the earlier of two events.^[2]

DOL acts early

The Department makes a written determination during the review period that the transaction satisfies the tentative-authorization requirements.

The 45-day period expires

Forty-five days pass after DOL acknowledges receipt, and the Department has not notified the applicant that the transaction is ineligible for EXPRO.^[2]

The clock begins with DOL's acknowledgment.

It does not begin simply because counsel pressed Send.

Silence Can Produce Tentative Status, Not Final Relief

If the 45-day period expires without an ineligibility notice, the case can reach tentative status under Section III's clock.^[2]

The applicant still must:

• distribute notice
• allow comments
• address substantive adverse comments
• reach final authorization.

A transaction team that closes on Day 46 because DOL was silent has skipped the second half of the exemption.

DOL Can Act Earlier

The Department can issue a written tentative determination before the 45-day period ends.^[2]

That accelerates the first phase.

It does not eliminate:

• participant notice
• comment rights
• final-authorization requirements.

An early favorable determination is useful.

It is not a closing letter.

DOL Can Also Stop EXPRO Eligibility

During the review period, DOL can notify the applicant that the proposal does not qualify for the expedited process.^[2]

Possible reasons include:

• weak precedent
• material differences
• a novel policy question
• insufficient safeguards
• incomplete filing.

The applicant may then need a conventional individual exemption or a redesigned transaction.

EXPRO is fast because the policy case is supposed to be routine, not because DOL gives up discretion.

Interested-Person Notice Comes After Tentative Status

Once the proposal reaches tentative authorization, the party seeking to engage in the transaction must provide written notice to interested persons in a manner reasonably calculated to result in receipt.^[2][6]

Participants and beneficiaries then have a chance to identify facts that may not appear in the applicant's submission.

This is a substantive protection.

It is not post-approval paperwork.

What Must the Notice Say?

The notice includes:^[2]

• an objective description of the transaction
• material terms and conditions
• approximate transaction date
• statement that tentative-authorization requirements have been satisfied
• statement of the right to comment to DOL
• comment deadline
• identification of the precedents supporting the request.

A notice that says only:

"The plan may enter a transaction with the employer"

does not give interested persons enough information to evaluate the conflict.

The Comment Period Runs for 25 Days After Distribution Is Complete

PTE 96-62 provides a 25-day comment period after distribution of notice has been completed.^[2]

If first-class mail is used, the PTE treats delivery as completed on the third business day after mailing for purposes of the comment clock.^[2]

That means the mailing date is not automatically Day 1 of the comment window.

Distribution completion comes first.

Why People Refer to a 78-Day Minimum

DOL's EXPRO guidance says authorization may be obtained in as few as 78 days from acknowledgment of a compliant submission.^[3]

The standard clean-path arithmetic is:

• 45 days to tentative authorization
• 3 business days for deemed first-class-mail distribution
• 25 days for comments
• 5 days after the comment period.

45 + 3 + 25 + 5 = 78.

That is a minimum pathway, not a guaranteed closing schedule.

Example Timeline

Assume DOL acknowledges the filing on:

September 1.

DOL does not issue an earlier written determination.

Phase 1 — tentative authorization

The first phase reaches approximately Day 45 if DOL has not found the transaction ineligible.

Phase 2 — notice distribution

Applicant promptly mails the approved notice by first-class mail.

For this calculation, mailed notice becomes effective for timing purposes after three business days.^[2]

Phase 3 — comments

Interested persons receive 25 days after completed distribution to submit comments.

Phase 4 — final period

Five days follow the close of the comment window, assuming DOL has no objection and no substantive adverse issue remains unresolved.^[2]

Weekend, holiday and actual mailing calendars should be handled carefully in a real closing schedule.

A Comment Does Not Automatically Kill the Transaction

The PTE focuses on substantive adverse comments.^[2]

Those are comments raising significant:

• factual
• legal
• policy

issues concerning the transaction, as determined by DOL.^[2]

A participant saying:

"I do not like transactions with the employer"

may not identify a material defect.

A participant supplying evidence that the appraisal ignored a substantially higher third-party offer is different.

Substantive Adverse Comments Can Extend the Process

The ordinary final-authorization path uses a five-day period immediately after the comment window.^[2]

If substantive adverse comments require resolution, the process can continue for a mutually agreed period while DOL and the applicant address them.^[2]

That is why the 78-day number should be viewed as the earliest clean path.

It is not a deadline imposed on the Department.

Example: Participant Challenges the Appraisal

Plan proposes to sell property to sponsor for:

$5 million.

Independent appraisal says:

$4.8 million.

During the comment period, a participant supplies evidence of a current third-party proposal at:

$6.2 million.

That can affect:

• fair market value
• prudence
• similarity to precedent
• DOL's protective finding.

The applicant should not assume final authorization will occur on the earliest modeled date.

Final Authorization Is the Point That Matters

The legal milestone for the closing checklist is the Department's final authorization.^[2]

A useful condition to closing is:

DOL has issued final EXPRO authorization effective for this transaction.

That is materially different from:

DOL has not objected during the initial 45 days.

Tentative status begins the interested-person phase.

It does not authorize the closing.

EXPRO Does Not Create a New Broad Class Exemption for Every Approved Deal

DOL maintains authorization lists identifying final authorization numbers, applicants, transaction descriptions and precedents.^[4][5]

Those records can help later applicants.

A final authorization can become part of the alternative precedent route for a subsequent transaction during the applicable 60-month period.^[2]

But the authorization remains tied to the facts, representations and conditions of the approved transaction.

Another plan cannot simply cite the number and skip its own filing.

The Precedent Chain Can Evolve

Consider this sequence:

2018 - DOL grants Individual Exemption A.

2021 - DOL gives final EXPRO authorization to Transaction B based on A and another qualifying precedent.

2025 - Applicant C may be able to cite A if it still fits the 120-month part of Route B and cite B if B remains inside its 60-month window.^[2]

The design preserves recent policy precedent while keeping an individual exemption as one anchor.

That reduces the risk of an endless chain of expedited cases becoming detached from formally developed precedent.

EXPRO Has Been Used for Several Established Transaction Patterns

DOL's authorization records show historical EXPRO matters involving structures such as:^[4][5]

• sales of plan real property to parties in interest
• stock and warrant transactions
• captive reinsurance
• securitization or underwriter arrangements
• financing transactions
• other recurring related-party structures.

The variety should not be misread.

A familiar label does not establish material similarity.

The protections, relationships and requested legal relief still have to line up.

Captive Reinsurance Shows Why the Process Can Be Useful

A benefit arrangement can involve an unrelated insurer issuing coverage while an employer-affiliated captive reinsurer receives risk and premium.

Because the captive is related to the employer, prohibited-transaction issues can arise.^[9][12]

DOL has historically evaluated captive structures using safeguards such as:

• independent fiduciary review
• benefit enhancements
• financially capable fronting insurer
• arm's-length pricing
• restrictions on captive economics.^[5]

Once the Department has established a protective template, a materially similar later arrangement can be a better EXPRO candidate than a truly novel case.

"Captive Reinsurance" Is Not Enough of a Comparison

Two arrangements bearing that label can differ in:

• benefit line
• participant-paid versus employer-paid premiums
• fronting insurer
• captive capitalization
• unrelated-business percentage
• pricing
• participant benefit improvements
• independent fiduciary scope.

A proposal cannot cite the category name and treat the analysis as complete.

EXPRO rewards precise replication of safeguards.

Current Part 2570 Procedures Matter

The 2002 exemption text incorporates the prohibited-transaction exemption application procedures in 29 CFR Part 2570 Subpart B.^[2]

Those procedures were updated after the PTE was written.^[7]

Current rules govern matters such as:

• application contents
• filing method
• declarations
• public record
• supplemental information
• interested-person notice
• hearings
• final decisions.^[7][8]

A 2002 checklist should therefore be paired with the current procedural regulation.

Exemption Applications Are Generally Public

The current DOL procedure provides for public availability of exemption-application materials, subject to applicable law.^[7]

DOL's EXPRO guidance likewise warns applicants that exemption submissions are public records.^[3]

That has a practical consequence.

Before filing, the transaction team should assume that important information concerning:

• structure
• relationships
• economics
• representations

may be accessible to the public.

EXPRO should not be entered with an expectation that ordinary commercial confidentiality will automatically shield the filing.

DOL Does Not Charge an EXPRO User Fee

DOL's exemption guidance states that no user fee is charged for an EXPRO authorization request.^[3]

The process is not costless.

Possible expenses include:

• ERISA counsel
• independent fiduciary
• appraisal or valuation
• participant notice
• internal compliance work
• transaction documentation.

The August 2026 information-collection notice reflects the specialized burden associated with preparing and administering the filing.^[6]

DOL's August 2026 Notice Confirms the Program Is Active

On August 19, 2026, DOL published an information-collection notice for the expedited approval process under PTE 96-62.^[6]

The notice describes the same core safeguards:

• written application documentation
• tentative authorization
• interested-person notice
• opportunity to comment.^[6]

OMB Control Number:

1210-0098.

The August 19 notice said the then-current approval was scheduled to expire:

February 28, 2027

while DOL sought an extension.^[6]

DOL's current class-exemption page now lists OMB Control No. 1210-0098 as expiring:

October 31, 2027.^[1]

The later date is the better current administrative reference. The August notice remains useful because it documents the extension process and the information DOL collects.

The OMB Date Is Not the Exemption's Sunset Date

An OMB expiration date governs approval of the information collection. It does not automatically terminate PTE 96-62.^[1][6]

Compliance calendars should therefore track two things separately:

• substantive status of EXPRO
• current paperwork approval.

PTE 2002-13 Clarified Which Plans Are Included

PTE 2002-13 amended a group of older class exemptions, including PTE 96-62, to clarify that the term employee benefit plan includes plans described in Code Section 4975(e)(1) where applicable.^[13]

That matters because a transaction can implicate:

• ERISA prohibited-transaction rules
• Code prohibited-transaction taxes
• both regimes.

The filing should identify the legal provisions actually requiring relief rather than using "ERISA plan" as a catch-all.

EXPRO vs. an Ordinary Class Exemption

Calling EXPRO a class exemption without explaining this distinction is technically incomplete and practically dangerous.

EXPRO vs. a Conventional Individual Exemption

EXPRO is best viewed as an accelerated individual-authorization path sitting inside a class exemption.

A Novel Transaction Belongs Outside EXPRO

Suppose a plan wants to enter a new digital-asset financing structure involving:

• employer-affiliated platform
• novel custody arrangement
• tokenized collateral
• unusual payment waterfall.

No materially similar DOL precedents exist.

Trying to fit the structure into EXPRO because it is "basically a loan" misses the purpose of the exemption.

DOL created the program for cases where the policy work has largely been done.

Novel facts call for another exemption route or a redesigned transaction.

Continuing Transactions Require Ongoing Discipline

DOL's EXPRO guidance warns that a continuing transaction such as a lease or loan can lose protection if material facts or representations change or exemption conditions cease to be met.^[3]

Final authorization is not a permanent immunity certificate.

The ongoing transaction needs monitoring.

Example: Lease Terms Change in Year Three

Assume the authorization covered:

• 10-year lease
• $40 per square foot
• 2% annual increases
• market renewal protection
• independent fiduciary monitoring.

In year three, the sponsor asks to:

• cut rent to $30
• waive two years of increases
• eliminate the security deposit.

Those are not clerical changes.

The economics supporting DOL's authorization have changed materially.

The plan should not assume the original relief survives.

Changes in Party Status Can Matter Too

Suppose the counterparty was unrelated to the independent fiduciary at authorization.

Two years later:

• fiduciary acquires equity in the counterparty
• a new affiliate relationship arises
• compensation is added.

The original facts no longer describe the complete conflict.

A transaction-specific exemption cannot safely be applied to a materially different relationship without analysis.

EXPRO Does Not Replace Section 404

PTE 96-62 expressly preserves ERISA's general fiduciary duties.^[2][11]

A transaction can receive final DOL authorization and still be imprudent.

Examples include:

• a better third-party offer becomes available
• the asset no longer serves the portfolio
• counterparty credit deteriorates
• plan concentration becomes excessive
• financing terms become unattractive
• the sponsor's objective overtakes the plan's interest.

Exemptive relief answers whether a prohibited transaction can proceed.

Section 404 asks whether the fiduciary should proceed.^[11]

Example: Exempt Sale, Poor Fiduciary Decision

Plan owns property appraised at:

$8 million.

Sponsor offers:

$8.2 million.

EXPRO final authorization is obtained.

Before closing, an unrelated buyer offers:

$9.4 million cash

with comparable certainty.

The related-party structure may still satisfy its exemption conditions.

The fiduciary still has to evaluate the better offer.

DOL did not make the investment decision for the plan.

The ROIStreet EXPRO Fit Test

Identify the proposed transaction → confirm it has not occurred → identify every ERISA Section 406 and Code Section 4975 restriction requiring relief → search DOL individual exemption and EXPRO precedents → confirm precedent provides the same requested legal relief → choose Route A: two individual exemptions within 60 months, or Route B: one individual exemption within 120 months plus one final EXPRO authorization within 60 months → build a material-term and safeguard comparison matrix → identify every difference and explain why it is not material → document why participant exposure to abuse or economic loss is minimal → determine whether Section 406(b) relief is requested → carry forward any required independent-fiduciary protection → prepare current Part 2570 application information → add EXPRO declaration, risk statement, precedent analysis and draft interested-person notice → file with DOL Office of Exemption Determinations → track DOL acknowledgment date → do not close at tentative authorization → after tentative status, distribute notice → run the 25-day comment period from completed distribution → address substantive adverse comments → wait for final authorization → close only after final status applies → monitor continuing conditions and material changes → document Section 404 prudence independently

The decisive question is not:

"Can we find two old exemptions that look close?"

It is:

"Can we prove to DOL that this transaction is materially the same policy case the Department has already approved, with the same protective architecture and little meaningful risk of participant abuse or loss?"

Frequently Asked Questions

What is PTE 96-62?

It is DOL's class exemption establishing the expedited EXPRO authorization process for qualifying prospective prohibited transactions.^[1][2][3]

Is EXPRO self-executing?

No. The applicant files with DOL and must reach final authorization after satisfying the submission, notice and comment requirements.^[2][3]

Can a transaction close as soon as the application is filed?

No. Filing begins the process; it does not create exemptive relief.

Can the transaction occur after tentative authorization?

Not in reliance on EXPRO. Tentative authorization starts the interested-person phase. Final authorization is the relevant relief milestone.^[2]

What is the basic precedent requirement?

Route A uses two substantially similar individual exemptions granted within the previous 60 months that provided the same requested relief.^[2]

What is the alternative precedent route?

Since 2002, an applicant can use one individual exemption from the previous 120 months plus one qualifying final EXPRO Authorized Transaction from the previous 60 months.^[2]

Who decides whether transactions are substantially similar?

DOL does. The PTE places the material-similarity determination in the Department's sole discretion.^[2]

Can a precedent cover a different prohibited-transaction section?

The qualifying precedent must have provided relief from the same restriction for which relief is requested under the EXPRO provision.^[2]

Does EXPRO cover Section 406(b)?

Section II can provide specified Section 406(b) relief subject to its additional conditions.^[2][9]

When is an independent fiduciary required?

When Section II relief is sought and the qualifying precedent required an independent fiduciary, that safeguard must be carried forward.^[2]

What does the fiduciary do in a continuing transaction?

The fiduciary may need to monitor performance, enforce the agreed protections and determine throughout the term that continued participation remains appropriate for the plan.^[2]

What must be filed?

The submission includes the current individual-exemption application information required by 29 CFR Part 2570 plus the EXPRO-specific declaration, risk analysis, precedent comparison and draft notice.^[2][7]

Can an application be filed electronically?

Yes. Current 29 CFR 2570.36 permits electronic filing with EBSA's Office of Exemption Determinations.^[8]

When does the 45-day clock start?

After DOL acknowledges receipt of the submission.^[2]

What happens if DOL is silent for 45 days?

The case can move into tentative status if the 45-day window closes without an ineligibility determination. Final relief still has not been granted.^[2]

How long is the comment period?

Twenty-five days after distribution of notice to interested persons is complete.^[2]

How is first-class-mail distribution timed?

Under the first-class-mail rule, add three business days to the mailing date before starting the comment window.^[2]

When does final authorization occur?

Ordinarily after the five-day period following the comment window, unless DOL finds the transaction ineligible or additional time is needed to resolve substantive adverse comments.^[2]

What is a substantive adverse comment?

A comment raising a significant factual, legal or policy issue concerning the transaction, as determined by DOL.^[2]

How does DOL arrive at the 78-day minimum path?

The clean minimum path combines 45 days to tentative status, three business days for deemed mail distribution, 25 days for comments and five days afterward.^[3]

Can EXPRO be used retroactively?

The program is designed for prospective transactions. A completed prohibited transaction requires separate legal analysis.^[1][3]

Are EXPRO applications confidential?

Generally not. DOL's exemption process makes application materials available for public inspection subject to applicable law.^[3][7]

Is there a DOL filing fee?

DOL states that it does not charge a user fee for requesting an EXPRO authorization.^[3]

Can a final authorization protect a materially changed lease forever?

No. Continuing relief can be jeopardized when material facts, representations or exemption conditions change.^[3]

Is PTE 96-62 still active in 2026?

Yes. DOL continues to list the exemption, maintains EXPRO authorization records and published an August 2026 information-collection extension notice for the process.^[1][4][6]

What is OMB Control No. 1210-0098?

It is the information-collection control number associated with EXPRO. The August 19, 2026 notice described the then-current February 28, 2027 expiration while DOL sought an extension; DOL's current class-exemption page now lists October 31, 2027.^[1][6]

Does the OMB expiration date mean EXPRO itself expires?

No. The OMB date concerns approval of the paperwork collection, not automatic termination of PTE 96-62.^[1][6]

Does final authorization prove the transaction is prudent?

No. ERISA Section 404 remains independently applicable.^[2][11]

Sources & References

1. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Class Exemptions — EXPRO, PTE 1996-62 — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/exemptions/class
2. U.S. Department of Labor / Federal Register: Adoption of Amendment to PTE 96-62 — Full Amended Text, 67 FR 44622 (July 3, 2002) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2002-07-03/pdf/02-16737.pdf
3. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Exemption Procedures Under Federal Pension Law — EXPRO Authorizations — https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/legacy-files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/exemption-procedures-under-federal-pension-law.pdf
4. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: EXPRO Authorizations Under PTE 96-62 — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/exemptions/expro-exemptions-under-pte-96-62
5. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: EXPRO Authorizations Under PTE 96-62 — Prior Years — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/exemptions/expro-exemptions-under-pte-96-62-prior-years
6. U.S. Department of Labor / Federal Register: Agency Information Collection Activities — PTE 96-62, OMB Control No. 1210-0098, 91 FR 53657 (August 19, 2026) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-19/pdf/2026-16880.pdf
7. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR Part 2570 Subpart B — Procedures Governing Prohibited Transaction Exemption Applications — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/part-2570/subpart-B
8. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2570.36 — Where to File an Application — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2570.36
9. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 29 U.S.C. §1106 — Prohibited Transactions — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1106
10. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 29 U.S.C. §1108 — Exemptions From Prohibited Transactions — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1108
11. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 29 U.S.C. §1104 — Fiduciary Duties — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1104
12. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 26 U.S.C. §4975 — Tax on Prohibited Transactions — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4975
13. U.S. Department of Labor / Federal Register: PTE 2002-13 — Amendment Clarifying the Term Employee Benefit Plan, 67 FR 9483 (March 1, 2002) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2002-03-01/pdf/02-4872.pdf

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about retirement-plan fiduciary duties, prohibited transactions, DOL exemption applications and EXPRO authorizations. This article is not legal, fiduciary, tax, investment, securities, valuation or plan-administration advice. PTE 96-62 is transaction-specific and highly dependent on the exact prohibited provisions, precedent, timing, material terms, safeguards, interested-person notice, comments, DOL determinations and continuing facts. A transaction should not be executed in reliance on EXPRO until final authorization applies. DOL authorization does not establish that the transaction is prudent, loyal, fairly valued or otherwise compliant with every provision of ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code.

The ROIStreet Reader Promise

We strive to explain before we evaluate, present evidence before opinions, discuss risks alongside potential benefits, distinguish facts from analysis, and correct material errors transparently.

Our purpose is to help readers better understand investing—not to tell them what to do.