Ex Parte Cease and Desist and Summary Seizure Orders-Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements, 76235-76249 [2011-30921]

Agencies

• Employee Benefits Security Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76235-76249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30921]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration

29 CFR Parts 2560 and 2571

RIN 1210-AB48


Ex Parte Cease and Desist and Summary Seizure Orders--Multiple 
Employer Welfare Arrangements

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains two proposed rules under the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to facilitate 
implementation of new enforcement authority provided to the Secretary 
of Labor by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable 
Care Act). The Affordable Care Act authorizes the Secretary to issue a 
cease and desist order, ex parte (i.e. without prior notice or 
hearing), when it appears that the alleged conduct of a multiple 
employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) is fraudulent, creates an immediate 
danger to the public safety or welfare, or is causing or can be 
reasonably expected to cause significant, imminent, and irreparable 
public injury. The Secretary may also issue a summary seizure order 
when it appears that a MEWA is in a financially hazardous condition. 
The first proposed regulation establishes the procedures for the 
Secretary to issue ex parte cease and desist orders and summary seizure 
orders with respect to fraudulent or insolvent MEWAs. The second 
proposed regulation establishes the procedures for use by 
administrative law judges (ALJs) and the Secretary when a MEWA or other 
person challenges a temporary cease and desist order.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed regulations should be submitted 
to the Department of Labor on or before March 5, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Lewis, Plan Benefits 
Security Division, Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor, at 
(202) 693-5588 or Suzanne Bach, Employee Benefits Security 
Administration, Department of Labor, at (202) 693-8335. These are not 
toll-free numbers.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to the address specified 
below. All comments will be made available to the public. Warning: Do 
not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, 
address, or other contact information) or confidential business 
information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may 
be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search 
engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
    Department of Labor. Comments may be submitted to the Department of 
Labor, identified by RIN 1210-AB48, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: E-OHPSCA521Orders.EBSA@dol.gov.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of Health Plan Standards and 
Compliance Assistance, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room 
N-5653, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210, Attention: RIN 1210-AB48; Section 521 Orders 
Proposed Regulations.
    Comments received by the Department of Labor will be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.dol.gov/ebsa, and 
made available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-
1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 6605 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Affordable Care Act), Public Law No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 adds 
section 521 to ERISA, which gives the Secretary of Labor new 
enforcement authority with respect to MEWAs.\1\ 124 Stat. 780. This 
section authorizes the Secretary to issue ex parte cease and desist 
orders when it appears to the Secretary that the alleged conduct of a 
MEWA is ``fraudulent, or creates an immediate danger to the public 
safety or welfare, or is causing or can be reasonably expected to cause 
significant, imminent, and irreparable public injury.'' 29 U.S.C. 
1151(a). A person that is adversely affected by the issuance of a cease 
and desist order may request an administrative hearing regarding the 
order. 29 U.S.C. 1151(b). This section also allows the Secretary to 
issue an order to seize the assets of a MEWA that the Secretary 
determines to be in a financially hazardous condition. 29 U.S.C. 
1151(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``multiple employer welfare arrangement'' is 
defined at ERISA Sec.  3(40), 29 U.S.C. 1002(40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERISA section 521 gives the Secretary legal remedies to address 
fraudulent and

[[Page 76236]]

abusive MEWAs.\2\ Although MEWAs that are properly operated provide an 
option for small employers seeking affordable employee health coverage, 
some have been marked by fraudulent practices and financial 
instability.\3\ Some self-insured MEWAs, in particular, have been found 
to have failed to use sound underwriting practices and have paid 
excessive amounts to operators and service providers. In Chao v. Graf, 
2002 WL 1611122 (D. Nev. 2002), for instance, the evidence indicated 
that the MEWA set premium rates, not based on sound actuarial analysis, 
but by setting a premium amount that was less than the average of a 
sample of rates it selected from the internet. The evidence also 
indicated that the defendants made unreasonably large payments from 
plan assets, including for services not rendered at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Private Health Insurance: Employers and 
Individuals Are Vulnerable to Unauthorized or Bogus Entities Selling 
Coverage, February 2004, GAO-04-312.
    \3\ In In re Raymond Palombo, et al, 2011 WL 1871438 (Bankr. 
C.D. CA 2011) (See also Solis v. Palombo, No. 1:08-CV-2017 (N.D. Ga 
2009)), for example, the court found that the defendant had, among 
other things, diverted substantial plan assets for his own benefit. 
The court also noted that ``when the Fund stopped operating, it had 
no assets, thousands of unprocessed claims, and no meaningful 
administrative records. Rather, it had only raw claims and provider 
invoices stuffed in cardboard boxes at [its] office.'' The court 
found the defendant liable to the Fund for nearly $3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some cases, the MEWA may have simply lacked sufficient resources 
or financial and administrative expertise to carry out their 
contractual and legal obligations. In others, a MEWA's financial 
instability results from fraud. When such MEWAs become insolvent, they 
may leave consumers with millions of dollars in unpaid medical 
bills.\4\ The financial impact on employers or employee organizations 
that have paid premiums or made contributions to the MEWA can be as 
significant. The ex parte cease and desist and summary seizure order 
authority will serve as an additional enforcement tool to protect plan 
participants, plan beneficiaries, employers or employee organizations, 
or other members of the public against fraudulent, or financially 
unstable MEWAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Kofman, Mila, Bangit, Eliza, and Lucia, Kevin, MEWAs: The 
Threat of Plan Insolvency and Other Challenges (The Commonwealth 
Fund March 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to addressing the standards for the Secretary to follow 
in issuing ex parte cease and desist and summary seizure orders under 
ERISA section 521, these proposed regulations describe the procedures 
before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) when a person 
seeks an administrative hearing for review of an ex parte cease and 
desist order. These proposed procedural regulations maintain the 
maximum degree of uniformity with rules of practice and procedure under 
29 CFR part 18 that generally apply to matters before the OALJ. At the 
same time, they reflect the unique nature of orders issued under ERISA 
section 521, and are controlling to the extent they are inconsistent 
with 29 CFR part 18. This preamble summarizes the specific 
modifications to the rules in 29 CFR part 18 being proposed for 
adoption in this notice.

II. Overview of the Regulations

A. Ex Parte Cease and Desist and Summary Seizure Order Regulations (29 
CFR Sec.  2560.521)

Purpose and definitions
    Pursuant to section 6605 of the Affordable Care Act, this proposed 
rule sets forth procedures for the Secretary to issue ex parte cease 
and desist orders and summary seizure orders and for administrative 
review of such cease and desist orders. The proposed rule applies to 
any cease and desist order and any summary seizure order issued under 
section 521 of ERISA and sets forth when the Secretary proposes to 
apply the orders. Paragraph (a) of section 2560.521-1 of the proposed 
rule specifies that orders may apply to MEWAs and to persons having 
custody or control of assets of a MEWA, any authority over management 
of a MEWA, or any role in the transaction of a MEWA's business. It also 
generally sets forth the criteria under which the Secretary may issue 
orders.
    Paragraph (b) of this section contains key definitions. The new 
section 521 applies the Secretary's cease and desist and seizure order 
authority to MEWAs as defined under section 3(40) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 
1002(40). Reflecting this statutory definition, paragraph (b)(1) 
provides that a ``multiple employer welfare arrangement'' is an 
employee welfare benefit plan or other arrangement, which is 
established or maintained for the purpose of offering or providing 
welfare plan benefits, including health benefits to the employees of 
two or more employers (including one or more self-employed 
individuals), or to their beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. 1002(40)(A). A MEWA 
does not, however, include any plan or arrangement established or 
maintained (1) Under or pursuant to one or more agreements that the 
Secretary of Labor finds to be collective bargaining agreements, (2) by 
a rural electric cooperative, or (3) by a rural telephone cooperative 
association. 29 U.S.C. 1002(40)(A)(i)-(iii).
    For purposes of this definition of a MEWA, two or more trades or 
businesses, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed a single 
employer if such trades or businesses are within the same control 
group. The term ``control group'' means a group of trades or businesses 
under common control. The determination of whether a trade or business 
is under ``common control'' with another trade or business shall be 
determined under regulations of the Secretary applying principles 
similar to the principles applied in determining whether employees of 
two or more trades or businesses are treated as employed by a single 
employer under section 4001(b), except that for purposes of this 
paragraph common control shall not be based on an interest of less than 
25 percent. 29 U.S.C. 1002(40)(B)(i)-(iii).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ No regulations have been issued under this provision. In the 
absence of regulations under section 3(40)(B)(iii), the Department 
would generally follow ERISA section 4001(b), 29 U.S.C. 1301(b) and 
therefore the Internal Revenue Code section 414(c) rules, in 
interpreting ERISA's MEWA preemption provisions. DOL Information 
Letter to The Honorable Mike Kreidler, dated March 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, ERISA's provisions are limited to employee welfare 
benefit plans, other than governmental plans, church plans, and plans 
maintained solely for the purpose of complying with workers' 
compensation laws (as defined in sections 4(b)(1), 4(b)(2), and 4(b)(3) 
of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1003(b)(1), 1003(b)(2) and 1003(b)(3)). However, 
Congress did not limit the Secretary's authority to issue cease and 
desist and seizure orders under section 521 of ERISA to MEWAs that are 
employee welfare benefit plans (ERISA-covered plans). In concordance 
with the 2003 final regulations \6\ on reporting by MEWAs, the 
Secretary's authority applies to MEWAs regardless of whether they are 
group health plans. Most notably, it extends to any arrangements that 
control the management or the assets of ERISA-covered plans established 
and maintained by others. Under this proposed rule, a MEWA that is an 
ERISA-covered plan or that is an arrangement that provides coverage to 
one or more ERISA-covered plans will be subject to section 521 of 
ERISA. Section 521 of ERISA applies if the MEWA also provides coverage 
to others unconnected to an ERISA-covered plan. The statute and this 
proposed rule are not, however, meant to apply to MEWAs that provide 
coverage only in connection with governmental plans, church plans, and 
plans maintained

[[Page 76237]]

solely for the purpose of complying with workers' compensation laws. 
They are also not meant to apply to arrangements that only provide 
coverage to individuals other than in connection with an employee 
welfare benefit plan (e.g., individual market coverage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 68 FR 17494 (04/09/2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, a MEWA, as defined in this proposed regulation, does 
not include an arrangement that is licensed or authorized to operate as 
a health insurance issuer in every State in which it offers or provides 
coverage for medical care to employees. However, it includes an 
arrangement that is not licensed in a State in which it operates even 
if it is established or maintained by a health insurance issuer that is 
authorized to operate in the State.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)-(4) define the three statutory grounds 
upon which the Secretary may issue a cease and desist order: (1) 
Fraudulent conduct; (2) conduct that creates an immediate danger to the 
public safety or welfare; or (3) conduct that causes or can be 
reasonably expected to cause significant, immediate, and irreparable 
injury. In order to apply these statutory standards, these proposed 
regulations set forth the criteria for determining if it appears that 
the MEWA or any person acting as an agent or employee of the MEWA has 
engaged in these forms of alleged conduct.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of section 2560.521-1 addresses the 
statutory standard of fraudulent conduct. Under the proposed rules, 
fraudulent conduct is an act or omission intended to deceive or to 
defraud plan participants, plan beneficiaries, employers or employee 
organizations, or other members of the public, the Secretary, or a 
State about certain matters described in the paragraphs below.\7\ False 
claims by some MEWAs that they are not subject to State insurance 
regulation are a matter of longstanding concern to the Secretary.\8\ 
The Secretary, for example, frequently finds MEWA operators making this 
claim based on the false assertion that the arrangement is established 
pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Collectively bargained 
arrangements are not subject to State insurance laws, including laws 
relating to solvency, financial reporting, management, and governance. 
Other matters of concern to the Department include MEWAs that do not 
have sufficient funding and reserves for the benefits they promise and 
fraudulent MEWA operators that misuse assets from the MEWA or the 
member plans. Misuse of assets comes in many guises. Instead of payment 
of benefit claims, fraudulent MEWA operators may use plan premiums for 
many inappropriate expenses including personal overseas travel, 
improper payments to personal accounts, unreasonable commissions to 
brokers, and inappropriate food, beverage, and alcohol purchases.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition, criminal penalties may apply to such conduct 
under other federal provisions, including ERISA section 501(b), 29 
U.S.C. 1131(b) (knowingly false statements or false representations 
of fact with regards to certain matters in connection with marketing 
a MEWA in violation of ERISA section 519, 29 U.S.C. 1149)), 29 
U.S.C. 1131(a) (willful violations of ERISA reporting and disclosure 
requirements), 18 U.S.C. 1001 (knowingly and willfully false 
statements to the U.S. government), and 18 U.S.C. 1027 (knowingly 
false statement or knowing concealment of facts in relation to 
documents required by ERISA).
    \8\ ERISA section 514(a), 29 U.S.C. 1144(a), provides that state 
laws that relate to employee benefit plans are generally preempted 
by ERISA. ERISA section 514(b)(6), 29 U.S.C. 1144(b)(6), provides an 
exception to this broad preemption provision and allows states to 
regulate all MEWAs that are ERISA-covered plans at varying levels, 
depending on if the MEWA is a fully-insured plan.
    \9\ E.g., Chao v. Crouse, 346 F.Supp.2d 975, 980-81, 987 (S.D. 
Ind. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These and similar problems have informed the proposed definition of 
fraudulent conduct that may give rise to a cease and desist order. 
Specifically, the proposed regulation focuses on fraudulent acts or 
omissions related to the financial condition of a MEWA (including its 
solvency and the management of plan assets), its regulatory status 
under Federal or State law, and aspects of its operation (e.g., claims 
review, marketing, etc.) that the Secretary determines are 
material.\10\ This standard would therefore reach, for example, a MEWA 
or any person acting as an employee or agent of the MEWA who 
fraudulently claims that the MEWA was a collectively bargained plan or 
arrangement, and thus, exempt from ERISA's definition of MEWA and State 
insurance regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Similarly, the new section 519 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1149, 
prohibits false statements and representations by any person, in 
connection with a MEWA's marketing or sales, concerning the 
financial condition or solvency of the MEWA, the benefits provided 
by the MEWA, and the regulatory status of the MEWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) defines the standard in section 521 that 
provides that the Secretary may issue a cease and desist order if the 
MEWA's conduct or the conduct of any person acting as an agent or 
employee of the MEWA creates an immediate danger to the public safety 
or welfare. Under the proposed rule, conduct meets this standard if it 
impairs, or threatens to impair, the MEWA's ability to pay claims or 
otherwise unreasonably increases the risk of nonpayment of benefits to 
plan participants, plan beneficiaries, employers or employee 
organizations, or other members of the public. A threatened inability 
to pay claims, whether it is the result of a serious crime, management 
inexperience, or neglect poses an immediate and serious danger to plan 
enrollees, employers, and potentially taxpayers.
    This definition addresses MEWAs that fail (or are at risk of 
failing) to pay claims because of insufficient funding and inadequate 
reserves. A failure to hold plan assets in trust as required under 
ERISA, a systematic failure to properly process or pay benefit claims, 
or a failure to maintain a recordkeeping system that tracks the claims 
made, processed, or paid also places plan assets at significant risk 
and threatens a MEWA's ability to pay claims.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) of section 2560.521-1 describes how the 
Secretary will determine if a MEWA's conduct causes or can be 
reasonably expected to cause significant, immediate, and irreparable 
injury, as provided in section 521 of ERISA. Under the proposed rule, 
conduct meets this statutory standard if it has, or can be reasonably 
expected to have, a significant and imminent negative effect that the 
Secretary reasonably believes cannot be fully rectified on one or more 
of the following: (a) An employee welfare benefit plan that is, or 
offers benefits in connection with, a MEWA, (b) plan participants and 
plan beneficiaries, or (c) employers or employee organizations. 
Siphoning off a MEWA's resources, and thus depleting the funds 
available to pay claims and other reasonable plan expenses, by 
embezzling funds or paying excessive, unwarranted fees are examples of 
conduct that causes or may be reasonably expected to cause significant, 
immediate, and irreparable injury.
    A single act or omission within the categories of conduct set forth 
in the regulation may provide the basis for a cease and desist order. 
However, because the categories set forth in the statute are broad and 
overlapping, the examples provided in the proposed regulation may 
provide more than one basis for a cease and desist order.
    The new section 521 further expands the Secretary's enforcement 
options with respect to MEWAs by authorizing the Secretary to issue a 
summary seizure order to remove plan assets and other property from the 
management, control, or administration of a MEWA. This authority 
differs from the Secretary's longstanding ability to petition a United 
States district court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) freezing 
a MEWA's assets or removing its operators. To obtain a TRO, the 
Secretary must present evidence that a

[[Page 76238]]

fiduciary breach has taken place and that the government will likely 
prevail on the merits. In contrast, the new section 521 of ERISA allows 
the Secretary to issue a summary seizure order when it appears that the 
MEWA is in a financially hazardous condition. Proposed paragraph (b)(5) 
defines when a MEWA meets this standard. It provides that the Secretary 
may issue a summary seizure order when it has probable cause to believe 
that a MEWA is, or is in imminent danger of becoming, unable to pay 
benefit claims as they become due, or that a MEWA has sustained, or is 
in imminent danger of sustaining, a significant loss of assets. Under 
the definition, a MEWA may also be in a financially hazardous condition 
if the Secretary has issued a cease and desist order to a person 
responsible for the management, control, or administration of the MEWA 
or plan assets associated with the MEWA. In that circumstance, the 
Secretary may seek a court-appointed receiver to manage the MEWA during 
the pendency of a hearing on the order.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(6) defines a person, for purposes of this 
regulation, to be an individual, partnership, corporation, employee 
welfare benefit plan, association, or other entity or organization.
Cease and Desist Order
    Proposed paragraph (c) of section 2560.521-1 addresses the proposed 
scope of the cease and desist order. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) notes 
that the Secretary may enjoin a MEWA or person from the conduct that 
served as the basis for the order and from activities in furtherance of 
that conduct though a cease and desist order. In addition, the cease 
and desist order may provide broader relief as the Secretary determines 
is necessary and appropriate to protect the interest of plan 
participants, plan beneficiaries, employers or employee organizations, 
or other members of the public. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) provides 
that an order may prohibit a person from taking any specified actions 
with respect to, or exercising authority over, specified funds of any 
MEWA or of any welfare or pension plan. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 
provides that an order may also bar a person from acting as a service 
provider to MEWAs or plans. This proposed provision allows the 
Secretary to issue an order preventing a person from, for example, 
performing any administrative, management, financial, or marketing 
services for any MEWA or any welfare or pension plan. A cease and 
desist order containing a prohibition against transacting business with 
any MEWA or plan would prevent the MEWA or a person from avoiding the 
cease and desist order by shutting the MEWA down and re-establishing it 
in a new location or under a new identity. Such a prohibition may also 
be necessary in cases of serious harmful conduct. In such cases it may 
be contrary to the interests of plan participants, plan beneficiaries, 
employers or employee organizations, or other members of the public for 
a person whose conduct gave rise to the order to gain a position with 
any MEWA or any welfare or pension plan where they could repeat that 
conduct.
    Proposed paragraph (d) of this section preserves the Secretary's 
existing ability to seek additional remedies under ERISA. For example, 
when a cease and desist order prohibits a MEWA's management from 
carrying on its responsibilities, the Secretary may petition the court 
to appoint a receiver under section 521(e) (relating to summary seizure 
orders) or section 502(a)(5) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(5), so that 
the MEWA may continue paying claims during the proceedings related to 
the cease and desist order. In some circumstances, the Secretary may 
conclude that the public interest is best served through legal 
proceedings under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(5), such as 
proceedings to recover monetary losses from breaching fiduciaries. 
Proposed paragraph (d) accordingly makes clear that the issuance of a 
temporary or final cease and desist order does not foreclose the 
Secretary from seeking other remedies in court or under ERISA.
    Under the new section 521(b) of ERISA, a person who is the subject 
of a temporary cease and desist order may request an administrative 
hearing regarding the order. Paragraph (e) of this proposed regulation 
sets forth the process for doing so. Parties subject to a cease and 
desist order have 30 days from receiving the order in which to request 
a hearing before an administrative law judge. If they fail to request 
the hearing within 30 days, the order becomes final. Proposed 
paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) state that the hearing shall be held, and 
an opinion issued, expeditiously.
    If a party requests an administrative hearing before an 
administrative law judge, the provision also clarifies that the 
Secretary must offer evidence supporting the findings that gave rise to 
the issuance of a cease and desist order. Pursuant to ERISA section 
521(c), 29 U.S.C. 1151(c), the burden of proof is on the party who 
requested the hearing to show by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the statutory standards are not satisfied or that a modification of the 
order would provide sufficient protection to plan participants, plan 
beneficiaries, employers or employee organizations, and other members 
of the public. If a party seeks an administrative hearing, the order is 
not final until the conclusion of the process set forth in 29 CFR 2571. 
It remains, however, in effect and enforceable throughout the 
administrative review process.
Summary Seizure Order
    The new section 521(e) of ERISA and this proposed rule authorize 
the Secretary to issue a summary seizure order when it appears that a 
MEWA is in a financially hazardous condition. Pursuant to the Fourth 
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Secretary will generally obtain 
judicial authorization before issuing a summary seizure order. 
(Colonnade Catering Corp. v. U.S., 397 U.S. 72 (1970): ``Where Congress 
has authorized inspection but made no rules governing the procedures 
that inspectors must follow, the Fourth Amendment and its various 
restrictive rules apply.'') Proposed paragraph (f)(2) provides for such 
judicial authorization. A court's authorization may be sought ex parte 
when the Secretary determines that prior notice could result in 
removal, dissipation, or concealment of plan assets. See e.g., Marshall 
v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 319 n. 12 and n. 15 (1978) (noting 
that the Occupational Safety and Health Act authorized the Secretary to 
seek warrants on an ex parte basis for inspections.) Proposed paragraph 
(f)(3) clarifies that the Secretary may act on a summary seizure order 
prior to judicial authorization, however, if the Secretary reasonably 
believes that delay in issuing the order will result in the removal, 
dissipation, or concealment of assets. Under these circumstances, the 
Secretary will promptly seek judicial authorization after service of 
the order.
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(5) of this section describe the 
proposed general scope of a seizure order.\11\ Under paragraph (f)(4), 
the Secretary may seize books, documents, and other records of the 
MEWA. It may also seize the premises, other property, and financial 
accounts for the purpose of transferring such property to a court-
appointed receiver. In addition, the order may prohibit the MEWA and 
its operators from transacting any business or disposing of any 
property of the MEWA. This proposed paragraph also

[[Page 76239]]

clarifies that the order also may be directed to any person holding 
plan assets that are the subject of the order, including banks or other 
financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The scope of the summary seizure order in this proposed 
rule is similar to that provided for in section 201(B) in the 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Insurer 
Receivership Model Act (October 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal purpose of a seizure order is to preserve the assets 
of an employee welfare benefit plan that is a MEWA and any employee 
welfare benefit plans under the control of a MEWA that are in a 
hazardous financial condition so that such assets are available to pay 
claims and other legitimate expenses of the MEWA and its participating 
plans. The Secretary will also issue summary seizure orders to prevent 
abusive operators from illegally using or acquiring plan assets. Seized 
assets are not placed in the U.S. Treasury. Instead they are managed by 
a court-appointed receiver or independent fiduciary. Proposed paragraph 
(f)(5) states that following a seizure the Secretary must pursue 
judicial proceedings to, among other things, obtain court appointment 
of a receiver to perform any necessary functions of the MEWA, and court 
authorization for further actions in the best interest of plan 
participants, plan beneficiaries, employers or employee organizations, 
or other members of the public, including the liquidation and winding 
down of the MEWA, if appropriate.
Effective Date of Orders
    Paragraph (g) of section 2560.521-1 provides that orders issued 
under this rule are effective upon service and remain in effect unless 
and until modified or set aside by the Secretary or a reviewing court.
Notice and Service
    Paragraph (h) of this section describes the manner in which the 
cease and desist and summary seizure orders will be served. Under 
paragraph (h)(1), service of an order may be accomplished by: (1) 
Delivering a copy to the person who is the subject of the order; (2) 
delivering a copy at the principal office, principal place of business, 
or residence of such person; or (3) mailing a copy to the last known 
address of such person. A person's attorney may accept service on 
behalf of such person. Proposed paragraph (h)(2) makes clear that 
service is complete upon mailing if service is made by certified mail. 
Service is complete upon receipt if made by regular mail.
Disclosure
    The Secretary has determined that it is in the public interest for 
plan participants, plan beneficiaries, employers or employee 
organizations, policymakers, and other citizens to be aware of the 
existence of any MEWA or person that has engaged in misconduct 
resulting in a final cease and desist or summary seizure order. 
Proposed section 2560.521-2(a) provides that the Secretary shall make 
issued orders available to the public as well as modifications and 
terminations of such final orders.
    In addition, other federal agencies and the States have been 
instrumental partners in the Secretary's enforcement efforts against 
unscrupulous MEWAs. Paragraph (b) of section 2560.521-2 provides that 
the Secretary may disclose the issuance of any order (whether temporary 
or final) and any information and evidence of any proceedings and 
hearings related to the order with other Federal, State, or foreign 
authorities. Paragraph (c) provides that the sharing of such documents, 
material, or other information and evidence under this paragraph does 
not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or claim of 
confidentiality.
Effect on Other Enforcement Authority
    Section 521 is not the only enforcement tool available to the 
Secretary with respect to the conduct of MEWAs or any persons acting as 
agents or employees of MEWAs. Section 2560.521-3 states that any other 
enforcement tool available to the Secretary prior to the enactment of 
section 521 remains available. This regulation shall not be construed 
as limiting the Secretary's ability to exercise its investigatory and 
enforcement authority under any other provision of title I of ERISA. 
The enforcement tools in this proposed rule are designed to prevent or 
address imminent, serious harm to plan participants, beneficiaries, 
employers, employee organizations, and other members of the public, and 
will be used judiciously and as necessary and appropriate to achieve 
these ends. In addition to the use of her investigatory and enforcement 
tools, the Secretary remains committed to helping MEWAs and plan 
officials comply with legal requirements and serve plan participants 
and beneficiaries properly and working closely with State regulators to 
help detect and prevent fraud, abuse, and financial insolvency.
Cross-Reference
    Proposed section 2560.521-4 contains a cross-reference for proposed 
rules for administrative hearings.
    In addition, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register is a 
separate proposed regulation to amend 29 CFR 2520-101.2, 2520.103-1, 
2520.104-20, and 2520.104-41 to implement section 101(g), as amended by 
the Affordable Care Act, and to enhance the Department's ability to 
enforce requirements under 29 CFR 2520-101.2.

B. Procedures for Administrative Hearings on the Issuance of Cease and 
Desist Orders Regulation (29 CFR Part 2571)

Purpose and Definitions
    These proposed procedural rules apply only to adjudicatory 
proceedings before ALJs of the U.S. Department of Labor. Under these 
procedural rules, an adjudicatory proceeding before an ALJ is commenced 
only after a person who is the subject of a temporary cease and desist 
order requests a hearing and files an answer showing cause why the 
temporary order should be modified or set aside.
    The definitional section of this proposed rule incorporates the 
basic adjudicatory principles set forth at 29 CFR part 18, but includes 
terms and concepts of specific relevance to proceedings under ERISA 
section 521.
Proceedings Before the Administrative Law Judge
    The party that is subject to a cease and desist order issued under 
ERISA section 521 has the burden to initiate an adjudicatory proceeding 
before an ALJ. Proposed section 2571.3 governs the service of documents 
necessary to initiate ALJ proceedings by such a party on the Secretary 
of Labor and the OALJ. This proposed section would apply in such cases 
in lieu of 29 CFR 18.3.
    The proposed section 2571.4 on the designation of parties also 
differs somewhat from its counterpart under 29 CFR part 18.10. This 
proposed rule specifies that the respondent in these proceedings will 
be the party who is challenging the temporary cease and desist order.
    Proposed section 2560.521-1(h), governs the Secretary's service of 
the temporary cease and desist order on the affected parties. Under 
proposed section 2560.521-1(e) a person who is subject to an order must 
request a hearing within 30 days after service of the order. Section 
2571.5 of the instant proposed rule provides that a failure by a person 
on whom the order is served to request a hearing and file a timely 
answer shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appear and contest the 
temporary cease and desist order and an admission of the facts alleged 
in the temporary order. Proposed section 2571.5 also makes clear that, 
in the event of a failure to timely request a hearing and file an 
answer the temporary cease and desist

[[Page 76240]]

order becomes final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
    With respect to consent orders or settlements, proposed section 
2571.6 provides that the ALJ's decision shall include the terms and 
conditions of any consent order or settlement which has been agreed to 
by the parties. Under this section, the decision of the ALJ which 
incorporates the consent order shall become the final agency action 
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704. This section of the proposed rule 
also sets forth the process for when there is a settlement that does 
not include all the parties that are subject to a cease and desist 
order.
    Section 2571.7 of this proposed rule states that the ALJ may order 
discovery only upon a showing of good cause by the party seeking 
discovery. In addition, the ALJ must expressly limit the scope and 
terms of discovery to the circumstances for which good cause has been 
shown. To the extent that an ALJ's discovery order does not specify 
rules for the conduct of discovery, the rules governing the conduct of 
discovery from 29 CFR part 18 are to be applied in these proceedings 
under ERISA section 521. For example, if the discovery order permits 
interrogatories only on certain subjects, the rules under 29 CFR part 
18 concerning the servicing and answering of the interrogatories shall 
apply. The procedures under 29 CFR part 18 for the submission of facts 
to the ALJ during the hearing will also apply in proceedings under 
ERISA section 521.
    This proposed section 2571.7 also clarifies that any evidentiary 
privileges, including the attorney-client privilege and work product 
privilege, apply in proceedings under this rule. Further, it makes 
clear that the fiduciary exception to such privileges also applies. 
Consequently, communications between an attorney and a plan 
administrator or other fiduciary or work product that fall under the 
fiduciary exception are not protected from discovery.
    Proposed section 2571.8 authorizes an ALJ to issue a summary 
decision which may become a final order when there are no genuine 
issues of material fact in a case arising under ERISA section 521. 
Proposed section 2571.9 states that the ALJ's decision shall become a 
final agency action unless a timely appeal is filed.
Review by the Secretary
    The procedures for appeals of ALJ decisions under ERISA section 521 
are governed solely by the rules set forth in proposed sections 2571.10 
through 2571.12 and without any reference to the appellate procedures 
contained in 29 CFR part 18. Proposed section 2571.10 establishes the 
time within which a party must file a notice of appeal, the manner in 
which the issues for appeal are determined, and the procedures for 
making the entire record before the ALJ available to the Secretary for 
review. Proposed section 2571.11 provides that review by the Secretary 
(or a designee) shall be on the record before the ALJ without an 
opportunity for oral argument. Proposed section 2571.12 sets forth the 
procedure for establishing a briefing schedule for appeals and states 
that the decision of the Secretary on an appeal shall be the final 
agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
    The authority of the Secretary with respect to the appellate 
procedures has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for the 
Employee Benefits Security Administration pursuant to Secretary's Order 
3-2010. The Assistant Secretary has redelegated this authority to the 
Director of the Office of Policy and Research of the Employee Benefits 
Security Administration. As required by the Administrative Procedure 
Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(A)) all final decisions of the Department under 
section 521 of ERISA shall be compiled in the Public Disclosure Room of 
the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210.

III. Economic Impact and Paperwork Burdens

A. Summary

    These proposed regulations implement amendments made by section 
6605 of the Affordable Care Act, which added ERISA section 521. As 
discussed earlier in this preamble, ERISA section 521 provides the 
Secretary of Labor with new enforcement authority over MEWAs. 
Specifically, ERISA section 521(a) authorizes the Secretary to issue 
cease and desist orders, without prior notice or a hearing, when it 
appears to the Secretary that a MEWA's alleged conduct is fraudulent, 
creates an immediate danger to the public safety or welfare, or causes 
or can be reasonably expected to cause significant, imminent, and 
irreparable public injury. This section also authorizes the Secretary 
to issue a summary order to seize the assets of a MEWA the Secretary 
determines to be in a financially hazardous condition. These proposed 
regulations implement ERISA section 521(a) by setting forth procedures 
the Secretary will follow to issue ex parte cease and desist and 
summary seizure orders.
    ERISA section 521(b), as added by Affordable Care Act section 6605, 
provides that a person that is adversely affected by the issuance of a 
cease and desist order may request an administrative hearing regarding 
the order. These proposed regulations also implement the requirements 
of ERISA section 521(b) by describing the procedures before the Office 
of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) that will apply when a person seeks 
an administrative hearing for review of a cease and desist order. These 
regulations maintain the maximum degree of uniformity with rules of 
practice and procedure under 29 CFR part 18 that generally apply to 
matters before the OALJ. At the same time, these proposed regulations 
reflect the unique nature of orders issued under ERISA section 521, and 
are controlling to the extent they are inconsistent with 29 CFR part 
18.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Department must determine whether 
a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to the 
requirements of the Executive Order and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of the Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that is likely 
to result in a rule (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities 
(also referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or 
planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary 
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    The Department has determined that these regulatory actions are not 
economically significant within the meaning of section 3(f)(1) of the 
Executive Order. However, OMB has determined that the actions are 
significant within the meaning of section 3(f)(4) of the Executive 
Order, and the Department accordingly provides the following assessment 
of their potential benefits and costs.

[[Page 76241]]

1. Need for Regulatory Action
    Properly structured and managed MEWAs that are licensed to operate 
in a State provide a viable option for some employers to purchase 
affordable health insurance coverage. However, some MEWAs are marketed 
by unlicensed entities attempting to avoid State insurance reserve, 
contribution, and consumer protection requirements. By avoiding these 
requirements, such entities often are able to market insurance coverage 
at lower rates than licensed insurers, making them particularly 
attractive to some small employers that find it difficult to obtain 
affordable health insurance coverage for their employees. Due to 
insufficient funding and inadequate reserves, and in some situations, 
fraud, some MEWAs have become insolvent and unable to pay benefit 
claims. Therefore, affected employees and their dependents have become 
financially responsible for paying medical claims they presumed were 
covered by insurance after paying health insurance premiums to 
MEWAs.\12\ The financial impact on individuals and families can be 
devastating when MEWAs become insolvent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ GAO Report, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the enactment of ERISA section 521, the Department's primary 
enforcement tool against fraudulent and abusive MEWAs was court-ordered 
injunctive relief. In order to obtain this relief, the Department must 
present evidence to a federal court that an ERISA fiduciary breach 
occurred and that the Department is likely to prevail based on the 
merits of the case. Gathering sufficient evidence to prove a fiduciary 
breach is time-consuming and labor-intensive, in most cases, because 
the Department's investigators must work with poor or nonexistent 
financial records and uncooperative parties. As a result, the 
Department has been unable to shut down fraudulent and abusive MEWAs 
quickly enough to preserve their assets and ensure that outstanding 
benefit claims are timely paid. States also encountered problems in 
their enforcement efforts against MEWAs in the absence of federal 
authority to shut down fraudulent and abusive MEWAs nationally. When 
one State succeeded in shutting down an abusive MEWA, in some cases, 
its operators continued operating in another State.\13\ ERISA section 
521 provides the Department with stronger legal remedies to combat 
fraudulent and abusive MEWAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERISA section 521(f) provides the Secretary of Labor with the 
authority to promulgate regulations that may be necessary and 
appropriate to carry out the Department's authority under ERISA section 
521. These proposed regulations are necessary, because they set forth 
standards and procedures the Department would use to implement this new 
enforcement authority. They also are necessary to provide procedures 
that a person who is adversely affected by the issuance of a cease and 
desist order may follow to request an administrative hearing regarding 
the order pursuant to ERISA section 521(b).
2. ERISA Section 521(a), Ex Parte Cease and Desist and Summary Seizure 
Orders--Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (29 CFR 2560.521-1)
a. Benefits of Proposed Rule
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, ERISA section 521(a) 
authorizes the Secretary to issue a an ex parte cease and desist order 
if it appears to the Secretary that the alleged conduct of a MEWA is 
fraudulent, or creates an immediate danger to the public safety or 
welfare, or is causing or can reasonably be expected to cause, 
significant, imminent, and irreparable public injury. ERISA section 
521(e) allows the Secretary to issue a summary seizure order if it 
appears that a MEWA is in a financially hazardous position. The 
proposed regulation implements the Department's enhanced enforcement 
authority under these provisions setting forth the standards and 
procedures the Department would follow in issuing cease and desist and 
summary seizure orders. It also defines important statutory terms and 
clarifies the scope of the Department's authority under ERISA sections 
521(a) and (e).
    The Department expects that proposed regulations will improve MEWA 
compliance and deter abusive practices of fraudulent MEWAs, lessening 
the need for these provisions in the first place. When that fails, as a 
result of these provisions, the Department would be able to take 
enforcement action against fraudulent and abusive MEWAs much more 
quickly and efficiently than under prior law. This will benefit 
participants and beneficiaries by helping them avoid the financial 
hardship and potential delayed health care that result from unpaid 
health claims. They also will allow the Department to fulfill its 
critical mission of protecting the security of participants and 
beneficiaries by ensuring that MEWA assets are preserved and benefits 
timely paid. These benefits have not been quantified.
b. Costs of the Proposed Rule
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, the proposed rules would 
provide standards and procedures the Department would follow to issue 
ex parte cease and desist and summary seizure orders with respect to 
MEWAs. The Department does not expect the rule to impose any 
significant costs, because it does not require any action or impose any 
requirements on MEWAs as defined in ERISA section 3(40). Therefore, the 
Department concludes that the proposed rule would provide benefits by 
enhancing the Department's ability to take immediate action against 
fraudulent and abusive MEWAs without imposing major costs.
3. ERISA Section 521(b), Procedures for Administrative Hearings on the 
Issues of Cease and Desist Orders--Multiple Employer Welfare 
Arrangements (29 CFR 2571.1 Through 2571.12)
a. Benefits of Proposed Rule
    The Department expects that administrative hearings held pursuant 
to ERISA section 521(b) and the procedures set forth in the proposed 
regulation would benefit the Department and parties requesting a 
hearing. The Department foresees improved efficiencies through use of 
administrative hearings, because such hearings should allow the parties 
involved to obtain a decision in a more timely and efficient manner 
than is customary in federal court proceedings, which would be the 
alternative adjudicative forum. The Department expects that this 
proposed rule setting forth the standards and procedures the Department 
would use to implement its cease and desist authority under ERISA 
section 521 will allow it to take action against fraudulent and abusive 
MEWAs much more quickly and efficiently than under prior law. These 
benefits have not been quantified.
    To access the benefit of improved efficiencies that would result 
from an administrative proceeding, the Department compared the cost of 
contesting a cease and desist order under the proposed regulation to 
the cost of contesting an action taken against a MEWA by the Department 
before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The Department's 
primary enforcement tool against fraudulent and abusive MEWAs before 
Congress enacted ERISA section 521 was court-ordered injunctive relief. 
In order to obtain this relief, the Department must present evidence to 
a court that an ERISA fiduciary breach occurred and that the Department 
likely would prevail based on the merits of the case.

[[Page 76242]]

Gathering sufficient evidence to prove a fiduciary breach is very time-
consuming and labor-intensive, in most cases, because the Department's 
investigators must work with poor or nonexistent financial records and 
uncooperative parties.
    The Department believes that an administrative hearing should 
result in cost savings compared with the baseline cost of litigating in 
federal court. Because the procedures and evidentiary rules of an 
administrative hearing generally track the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure and Evidence, document production will be similar for both an 
administrative hearing and a federal court proceeding. It is unlikely 
that any additional cost will be incurred for an administrative hearing 
than would be required to prepare for federal court litigation. 
Moreover, certain administrative hearing practices and other new 
procedures initiated by this regulation are expected to result in cost 
savings over court litigation. For example, parties may be more likely 
to appear pro se; the prehearing exchange is expected to be short and 
general; a motion for discovery only will be granted upon a showing of 
good cause; the general formality of the hearing may vary, particularly 
depending on whether the petitioner is appearing pro se; and the ALJ 
would be required to make its decision expeditiously after the 
conclusion of the ERISA section 521 proceeding. The Department cannot 
with certainty predict that any or all of these conditions will exist 
nor that any of these factors represent a cost savings, but it is 
likely that an ALJ's knowledge of federal law should facilitate an 
expeditious hearing, reduce costs, and introduce a consistent legal 
standard to the proceeding. The Department invites public comments on 
the comparative cost of a federal court proceeding versus an 
administrative hearing.
b. Costs of Proposed Rule
    The Department estimates that the cost of the proposed regulation 
would total approximately $177,000 annually. The total hour burden is 
estimated to be approximately 20 hours, and the dollar equivalent of 
the hour burden is estimated to be approximately $540. The data and 
methodology used in developing these estimates are described more fully 
in the Paperwork Reduction Act section, below.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department of Labor conducts a preclearance consultation 
program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an 
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of 
information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 
95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that requested data 
can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and 
financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly 
understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents 
can be properly assessed.
    This issuance of cease and desist order proposed regulation is not 
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), because it does not contain a ``collection of 
information'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
    Currently, the Department is soliciting comments concerning the 
proposed information collection request (ICR) included in this Proposed 
Rule on Procedures for Administrative Hearings Regarding the Issuance 
of Cease and Desist Orders under ERISA section 521--Multiple Employer 
Welfare Arrangements. A copy of the ICR may be obtained by contacting 
the individual identified below in this notice. The Department has 
submitted a copy of the proposed information collection to OMB in 
accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) for review of its information 
collections. The Department and OMB are particularly interested in 
comments that:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for the 
Employee Benefits Security Administration. Although comments may be 
submitted through February 6, 2012, OMB requests that comments be 
received within 30 days of publication of the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to ensure their consideration. Address requests for copies 
of the ICR to G. Christopher Cosby, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N 5647, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone 
(202) 219-8410; Fax: (202) 219 4745. These are not toll free numbers.
    This proposed regulation establishes procedures for hearings and 
appeals before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Secretary when 
a MEWA or other person challenges a temporary cease and desist order. 
As stated in the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis below, the 
Department estimates that, on average, a maximum of 10 MEWAs would 
initiate an adjudicatory proceeding before an ALJ to revoke or modify a 
cease and desist order.\14\ Most of the factual information necessary 
to prepare the petition should be readily available to the MEWA and is 
expected to take approximately two hours of clerical time to assemble 
and forward to legal professionals resulting in an estimated total hour 
burden of approximately 20 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As stated in the Departments April 2010 Fact Sheet on MEWA 
Enforcement, the Department has filed 97 civil complaints against 
MEWAs since 1990, which averages approximately five complaints per 
year. With the expanded enforcement authority provided to the 
Department under the Affordable Care Act, the number of civil 
complaints brought against MEWAs by the Department could increase. 
Therefore, for purposes of this Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, 
the Department assumes that twenty complaints will be filed as an 
upper bound. The Department is unable to estimate the number of 
cease and desist orders that will be contested; therefore, for 
purposes of this analysis it assumes that half of the MEWAs will 
contest cease and desist orders. The Department's fact sheet on MEWA 
enforcement can be found on the EBSA Web site at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsMEWAenforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department believes that MEWAs will hire outside attorneys to 
prepare and file the appeal, which is estimated to require 40 hours at 
$442 per hour.\15\ The majority of the attorney's time is expected to 
be spent drafting motions, petitions, pleadings, briefs, and other 
documents relating to the case. Based on the foregoing, the total 
estimated legal cost associated with the information collection would 
be approximately $18,000 per petition filed. Additional costs material 
and mailing costs are

[[Page 76243]]

estimated at approximately $50.00 per petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Department's estimate for the attorney's hourly rate is 
taken from the Laffy Matrix which provides an estimate of legal 
service for court cases in the DC area. It can be found at https://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html. The estimate is an average of the 4-7 
and 8-10 years of experience rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Review: New.
    Agency: Employee Benefits Security Administration.
    Title: Proposed Rule on Procedures for Administrative Hearings 
Regarding the Issuance of Cease and Desist Orders under ERISA section 
521--Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements.
    OMB Number: 1210-NEW.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; not for profit 
institutions; State government.
    Respondents: 10.
    Responses: 10.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 20 hours.
    Estimated Total Burden Cost (Operating and Maintenance): $177,100.
    Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be 
summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and 
Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also 
become a matter of public record.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) applies 
to most Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment 
requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 551 et seq.). Unless an agency certifies that such a rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 603 of the RFA requires the agency to present an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication 
of the notice of proposed rulemaking describing the impact of the rule 
on small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
organizations and governmental jurisdictions.
    The Department does not have data regarding the total number of 
MEWAs that currently exist. The best information the Department has to 
estimate the number of MEWAs is based on filing of the Form M-1, which 
is an annual report that MEWAs and certain collectively bargained 
arrangements file with the Department. Nearly 400 MEWAs filed the Form 
M-1 with the Department in 2009, the latest year for which data is 
available.
    The Small Business Administration uses a size standard of less than 
$7 million in average annual receipts to determine whether businesses 
in the finance and insurance sector are small entities.\16\ While the 
Department does not collect revenue information on the Form M-1, it 
does collect data regarding the number of participants covered by MEWAs 
that file Form M-1 and can use average premium data to determine the 
number of MEWAs that are small entities because they do not exceed the 
$7 million dollar threshold. For 2009, the average annual premium for 
single coverage was $4,717 and the average annual premium for family 
coverage was $12,696.\17\ Combining these premium estimates with 
estimates from the Current Population Survey regarding the fraction of 
policies that are for single or family coverage at employers with less 
than 500 workers, the Department estimates that about 60 percent of 
MEWAs (240 MEWAs) are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ U.S. Small Business Administration, ``Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System Codes.'' https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
    \17\ Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Educational 
Trust ``Employer Health Benefits, 2009 Annual Survey.'' The reported 
numbers are from Exhibit 1.2 and are for the category Annual, all 
Small Firms (3-199 workers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to develop an estimate of the number of MEWAs that could 
become subject to a cease and desist order, the Department examined the 
number of civil claims the Department filed against MEWAs since FY 
1990. During this time, the Department filed 99 civil complaints 
against MEWAs, an average of approximately five complaints per year. 
For purposes of this analysis, the Department believes that an average 
of twenty complaints a year is a reasonable upper bound estimate of the 
number of MEWAs that could be subject to a cease and desist order \18\ 
and that half this number, or an average of ten complaints a year, is a 
reasonable upper bound estimate of the number of MEWAs that could be 
expected to request an administrative hearing in a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ With the expanded enforcement authority provided to the 
Department under the Affordable Care Act, the number of civil 
complaints brought against MEWAs by the Department could increase. 
Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the Department assumes 
that twenty complaints will be filed as an upper