Exemption Involving Hawai'i Pacific Health and Its Subsidiary: Straub Clinic & Hospital Located in Honolulu, Hawaii

Issuing agencies

Abstract

This exemption permits the Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health Retirement Plan (the Plan) to sell property (the Property) to Straub Clinic & Hospital (Straub) for the greater of $16,247,000 or 110% of the Appraised Value of the Property as of the date of the sale (the Sale). Absent this exemption, the Sale would violate certain prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 161 (Friday, August 21, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 161 (Friday, August 21, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54383-54387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2026-05; Application Number D-12082]


Exemption Involving Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health and Its 
Subsidiary: Straub Clinic & Hospital Located in Honolulu, Hawaii

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This exemption permits the Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health 
Retirement Plan (the Plan) to sell property (the Property) to Straub 
Clinic & Hospital (Straub) for the greater of $16,247,000 or 110% of 
the Appraised Value of the Property as of the date of the sale (the 
Sale). Absent this exemption, the Sale would violate certain prohibited 
transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 (ERISA) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).

DATES: This final exemption is effective August 21, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Schroth, Office of Exemption 
Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. 
Department of Labor, (202) 693-8540 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health (the 
Applicant) requested an exemption pursuant to ERISA section 408(a) and 
Code section 4975(c)(2) in accordance with the Department's exemption 
procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B.\1\ After reviewing 
the application, the Department tentatively determined that the Sale 
would be in the interest of, and protective of, the Plan and its 
participants and beneficiaries, and would also be administratively 
feasible, because, among other things: (1) a qualified independent 
fiduciary (QIF) would protect the Plan's interests with respect to the 
Sale; and (2) the Plan would receive at least 110% of the Appraised 
Value for the Property. The term Appraised Value means the greater of 
the Property's ``fair market value'' or its ``Investment Value,'' \2\ 
as of the date of the Sale, as determined by a Qualified Independent 
Appraiser (QIA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637 (October 27, 
2011)). The Department's exemption procedures regulation was amended 
at 89 FR 4662, on January 24, 2024, with an effective date of April 
8, 2024. However, because the application was submitted on December 
5, 2022, the procedures in effect as of that date govern. Effective 
December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 
5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary 
of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested by the 
Applicant to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, this notice of 
exemption is issued solely by the Department. For purposes of this 
exemption, references to ERISA section 406, unless otherwise 
specified, should be read to refer as well to the corresponding 
provisions of Code section 4975.
    \2\ For purposes of this exemption, Investment Value means the 
value of a property to a particular investor or class of investors 
based on the investor's specific requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 26, 2025, the Department proposed an exemption that 
would permit the Sale, subject to certain conditions (the Proposed 
Exemption),\3\ and invited interested persons to submit written 
comments and/or requests for a public hearing. All comments and 
requests for a hearing were due to the Department by January 16, 2026. 
The Department received sixty-five written comments from individuals 
and one written comment from the Hawai[revaps]i Nurses' Association, 
OPEIU Local 50 (Local 50) (collectively, the Commenters). Discussed 
below are the issues raised by the Commenters and responses to these 
issues raised by Central Pacific Bank (CPB), the Plan's QIF. Also 
discussed below is the Commenters' request for a hearing and the 
Department's response to that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 90 FR 54387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #1. The Proposal does not explain why the Property was not 
put up for sale on the open market, which could produce a higher or 
better offer for the Plan than what the appraiser estimated the 
Property is worth.
    CPB Response to Comment #1. The open market option was not 
preferred because Straub offered to buy the Property at a price that 
exceeded what the Property is expected to sell for on the open market. 
CPB's appraiser

[[Page 54384]]

estimated that the fair market value of the Property was $13,030,000 as 
of April 1, 2024. At the Department's urging, CPB negotiated an 
increased Sale price of $14,770,000, based on the Property's appraised 
Investment Value. CPB further negotiated an additional amount over the 
Investment Value, which increased the purchase price of the Property to 
$16,247,000. CPB's appraiser also opined that an open market buyer 
would be unlikely to make an offer that exceeds the Property's fair 
market value due to the Property's features, such as the Property's 
irregular shape, its existing long-term lease, and its zoning 
restrictions.
    Department Response to Comment #1. The Department considered this 
issue during its review of the exemption application. After 
reevaluating the merits of the Sale following the publication of the 
Proposed Exemption, including the written comment from Local 50, the 
Department remains of the view that the Sale would provide a greater 
return to the Plan than a sale of the Property on the open market. 
Importantly, the Plan will receive a price that is the greater of 
$16,247,000 or 110% of the Appraised Value of the Property as of the 
date of the Sale.
    Comment #2. The appraisal relies on assumptions that may exclude 
strategic value unique to the affiliated buyer, and the Plan owning the 
land below the yet-to-be-built hospital would increase its value on the 
open market.
    CPB Response #2. The increased value associated with Straub's 
intention to build a hospital is incorporated into the Investment Value 
estimate. Further, the assumptions set forth in the Property's 
appraisal were developed in accordance with recognized valuation 
methodologies and are consistent with prevailing professional 
standards. Each assumption in the appraisal reflected established 
industry norms and accepted analytical practices.
    Department's Response #2. The Department considered this issue 
during its review of the exemption application. As noted above, in 
order to capture the unique value that the Property holds for Straub, 
the exemption requires that the Plan receive the greater of $16,247,000 
or 110% of the Appraised Value of the Property as of the date of the 
Sale. For purposes of this exemption, the Appraised Value of the 
Property means the greater of the Property's ``fair market value'' or 
its ``Investment Value,'' as determined by a QIA. The Property's 
Investment Value takes into account the Property's unique value to 
Straub and, presently, increases the Property's value relative to its 
fair market value. In this way, the Plan will receive the unique value 
of the Property with respect to Straub.
    Comment #3. The Commenters state that the Proposed Exemption does 
not show that the Sale is in the best interest of the Plan compared to 
reasonable alternatives, such as selling through a competitive process 
or continued ownership by the Plan.
    Department's Response #3. The competitive process issue is 
discussed in Response #1 above. To assess the Commenter's argument that 
continued ownership of the Property by the Plan would be in the Plan's 
best interest as opposed to the Sale, the Department reviewed the 
Property's April 22, 2024, appraisal (2024 Appraisal). One of the 
valuation methodologies analyzed in the 2024 Appraisal was the Income 
Capitalization Approach (i.e., valuing the present worth of anticipated 
future income projected to be derived from the Plan's continued 
ownership of the Property). To determine the likely highest dollar 
value to the Plan between continued leasing of the Property and selling 
the Property, the Department compared: (1) the QIA's estimated present 
value of future income to the Plan by continued ownership of the 
Property; with (2) the negotiated purchase price of the Property.
    The 2024 Appraisal shows that the negotiated purchase price for the 
Property ($16,247,000) would likely be greater than the estimated value 
to the Plan due to its continued ownership of the Property 
($14,770,000). Thus, the Sale would provide the estimated highest value 
to the Plan between the two options. The conditions of this exemption 
further protect the Plan by requiring the purchase price formula for 
the Sale to be the greater of $16,247,000 or 110% of the Appraised 
Value (i.e., the higher of the market value or Investment Value) as of 
the date of the Sale. Finally, the record shows that CPB determined 
that the Sale was the most prudent course of action, given the Plan's 
objectives and financial situation.
    Comment #4. The Commenters note that Straub has not paid back all 
the property expenses the Plan erroneously paid on Straub's behalf, in 
connection with the Plan's erroneous payment of Property taxes, 
utilities, and maintenance from 2006 to 2022 (Property Expenses). The 
Commenters state that this mistake means that Straub should not be 
trusted with a Sale without testing the open market to confirm the 
Property's value. Separately, one Commenter suggested that potential 
collusion exists between the Plan sponsor and related parties and notes 
that the Plan may be hiding additional operational failures.
    CPB's Response #4. CPB notes that Condition (g) of the Proposed 
Exemption requires Straub (or Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health) to repay 
the Plan all of the Property Expenses from 2006 to 2022.
    Department's Response #4. Prior to publication of the Proposed 
Exemption: Straub repaid the Property Expenses owed to the Plan, plus 
interest, for years 2015 to 2022; and the Department confirmed that the 
amount repaid at least equaled the amount owed the Plan for years 2015 
to 2022.
    Following publication of the proposed exemption, Hawai[revaps]i 
Pacific Health repaid (on behalf of Straub) the Property Expenses owed 
to the Plan, plus interest, for years 2006 to 2014. Section III(b)(7) 
of this exemption requires the QIF to confirm in writing to the 
Department that the amount repaid at least equaled the amount owed the 
Plan for years 2006 to 2014.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Prior to publishing the Proposed Exemption, the Department 
confirmed that Hawai'i Pacific Health repaid the correct amount of 
Property Expenses and interest to the Plan for years 2015 to 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #5. Local 50 states that by ``conducting a closed sale of 
the land to the plan sponsor the plan is providing a material benefit 
to the plan sponsor without receiving appropriate compensation'' and 
that the ``right of first refusal is a consideration that should 
require compensation in a transaction that places the Plan participants 
first.'' The Commenters further provide that the Sale should be 
disallowed and an investigation into the Sale, the trustees, and the 
Plan sponsor should be conducted.
    CPB's Response #5. In response to the argument that the proposed 
Sale constitutes an ``uncompensated benefit to the plan sponsor,'' CPB 
notes that the proposed price includes both an Investment Value premium 
(which reflects the Property's enhanced value specifically to Straub 
due to Straub's unique position as the adjoining landowner) and an 
additional 10% above the Property's appraised Investment Value.
    Department's Response #5. The terms of the Sale were closely 
evaluated by the Department during its processing of the application, 
including the Sale price and its component, Investment Value. The 
Comment did not raise any new facts that would lead the Department to 
question whether the Plan will receive appropriate compensation. 
Further, the Department has found no evidence that a right of first 
refusal exists on this Property--only that the Plan intends to sell the 
Property to Straub. Finally, the Commenters provided no additional

[[Page 54385]]

facts that support an investigation into the Sale, the Trustees, or the 
Sponsor.
    Hearing Request. Local 50 and the vast majority of the individual 
commenters requested a hearing to address the concerns above and to 
ensure the transaction's alignment with the interests of the Plan 
participants.
    Department's Response to the Hearing Request. As noted in the 
Proposed Exemption, the Department's procedural regulations provide for 
a hearing when ``necessary to fully explore material factual issues 
identified by the person requesting the hearing.'' \5\ The Department's 
regulations also provide that it may decline to hold a hearing if, 
among other things, ``the factual issues identified can be fully 
explored through the submission of evidence in written (including 
electronic) form.'' None of the comments received raised any factual 
issues that were not already considered by the Department in its 
evaluation of the exemption application, and no commenter identified 
any issues that cannot be fully explored through the submission of 
evidence in written form. The Department therefore declines to hold a 
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (75 FR 66637, October 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department notes that in processing the Applicant's exemption 
request, it thoroughly reviewed the application, all materials 
submitted in support of the application, and all comments received 
during the comment period. A complete copy of the record supporting 
this exemption is available in the Department's Public Disclosure Room 
by referencing Application No. D-12082.

Other Changes

    This final exemption also includes minor, non-substantive edits 
intended to correct scrivener's errors or make non-substantive 
clarifications.

Statutory Findings

    Based on the entire record, including the comments discussed above, 
the Department has determined to grant the proposed exemption. In this 
regard, the Department makes the requisite findings under ERISA section 
408(a), based on the Applicants' adherence to all the conditions and 
definitions of the exemption at all times. Accordingly, affected 
parties should be aware that the conditions and definitions 
incorporated in this exemption are, taken individually and as a whole, 
necessary for the Department to grant the relief requested by the 
Applicant. In granting this exemption, the Department has relied on the 
representations of the Applicant. If any material statement in the 
Application, supporting documents (including the Applicant's comment), 
Proposed Exemption or final exemption is not, or may no longer be, 
completely and factually accurate, the Applicant and recipients of the 
exemptive relief provided herein must immediately alert the Department.
    The complete application file (D-12082) will remain available for 
public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee 
Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210 reachable by 
telephone at (202) 693-8673. For a more complete statement of the facts 
and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this 
exemption, please refer to the Proposed Exemption.

General Information

    The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
    (1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption 
under ERISA section 408(a) and/or Code section 4975(c)(2) does not 
relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person 
from certain other provisions of ERISA and/or the Code, including any 
prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply 
and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA section 
404, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge their 
duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants 
and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance 
with ERISA section 404(a)(1)(B); nor does it affect the requirement of 
Code section 401(a) that the Plan must operate for the exclusive 
benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the Plan and their 
beneficiaries;
    (2) As required by ERISA section 408(a), the Department hereby 
finds that the exemption is (1) administratively feasible for the 
Department, (2) in the interests of affected plans and of their 
participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of 
participants and beneficiaries of such Plans;
    (3) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any 
other ERISA provisions, including statutory or administrative 
exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a 
transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is 
not dispositive of determining whether the transaction is in fact a 
prohibited transaction; and
    (4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express 
condition that the material facts and representations contained in the 
application accurately describe all material terms of the transactions 
that are the subject of the exemption and are true at all times.
    Accordingly, after considering the entire record developed in 
connection with the Applicant's exemption application, the Department 
has determined to grant the following exemption under the authority of 
ERISA section 408(a) and Code section 4975(c)(2) in accordance with the 
Department's exemption procedures regulation.

Exemption

Section I. Definitions

    (a) ``Appraised Value'' means the greater of the Property's fair 
market value or its Investment Value, as determined by the QIA.
    (b) ``Investment Value'' means the value of a property to a 
particular investor or class of investors based on the investor's 
specific requirements. In the instant case, Lesher, the Qualified 
Independent Appraiser, considered the potential benefit to Straub for 
purchasing the Property taking into account the fact that Straub owned 
an abutting parcel of real estate.
    (c) ``Plan'' means the Hawai'i Pacific Health Retirement Plan, a 
defined benefit plan that provides retirement benefits to Hawai'i 
Pacific Health employees and the employees of Straub Clinic & Hospital. 
Hawai'i Pacific Health appointed the Hawai'i Pacific Health Retirement 
Plan Finance Committee (the Committee) to serve as the Plan's named 
fiduciary and plan administrator.
    (d) The ``Property'' means the parcel of real property owned by the 
Plan and located at 888 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.
    (e) ``Property Expenses'' mean the expenses and costs relating to 
the Property that Straub was responsible to pay pursuant to several 
provisions in the lease between Straub and the Plan, dated January 2, 
1969. These costs and expenses include taxes, utilities, and 
maintenance.
    (f) ``Purchase Price'' means the price paid by Straub to the Plan 
for the Property, which must be the greater of $16,247,000 or 110% of 
the Appraised Value as determined by the QIA on the date of Sale. This 
amount may be further negotiated upwards by the QIF if necessary to 
determine that the Sale is in the best interest of the Plan.
    (g) ``Qualified Appraisal Report'' means the report appraising the 
Property as of the Sale date that comports with the requirements of 29 
CFR 2570.31(h).

[[Page 54386]]

    (h) ``QIA'' means Lesher Chee Stadlbauer (Lesher), or such other 
``Qualified Independent Appraiser,'' as defined in 29 CFR 2570.31(i), 
hired by the QIF to determine the Property's Appraised Value as of the 
date of the Sale. If the QIF replaces Lesher with a new entity to act 
as the QIA in connection with the Sale, the new entity must be approved 
in writing by the Department, and the Department must receive a copy of 
the new appraiser's appraisal report for the Property at least 60 days 
in advance of the Sale.
    (i) ``QIF'' means Central Pacific Bank (CPB), or such other 
``Qualified Independent Fiduciary,'' as defined in 29 CFR 2570.31(j), 
hired by the Plan to monitor, review, negotiate, and exercise the sole 
authority to approve the Sale of the Property in accordance with the 
requirements of ERISA section 404(a) and 404(b), and this exemption, if 
granted. If the Plan replaces CPB with a new entity to serve as the QIF 
in connection with the Sale, the new entity must be approved in writing 
by the Department at least 90 days in advance of the Sale.
    (j) ``Straub'' means Straub Clinic & Hospital, a wholly controlled 
subsidiary of Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health, the employees of which are 
participants in the Plan.

Section II. Transactions

    This exemption provides relief from the prohibited transactions 
provisions of ERISA sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1), and 
406(b)(2), and Code sections 4975(c)(1)(A), (D), and (E) for 
Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health and the Committee in connection with the 
sale of the Property by the Plan to Straub in exchange for a lump sum 
payment of cash equal to the Purchase Price (the Sale). To receive this 
relief, the conditions in Section III must be met in conformance with 
the definitions in Section I.

Section III. Conditions

    (a) The Sale must be a lump sum payment in cash equal to the 
Purchase Price, and the Sale must take place within 60 days of the date 
of publication of the exemption in the Federal Register.
    (b) The QIF must have the sole authority to approve the Sale and 
take any other fiduciary action on behalf of the Plan with respect to 
the Sale; and the QIF must take the following actions in accordance 
with its fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA Section 404(a) and (b):
    (1) Determine whether it is prudent to go forward with the Sale and 
make a final determination on the record whether or not to proceed with 
the Sale;
    (2) Approve the terms and conditions of the Sale;
    (3) Retain the services of a QIA, review the Qualified Appraisal 
Report, approve the methodology used by the QIA, and ensure that such 
methodology is properly applied in determining the Property's fair 
market value and Investment Value on the date of the Sale;
    (4) Negotiate a higher price than the current Purchase Price, if 
necessary, in order to determine that the Sale is in the best interest 
of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
    (5) Monitor the Sale throughout its duration on behalf of the Plan 
to ensure the parties' compliance with the terms of applicable sale 
agreements and related documents and enforce the rights of the Plan and 
its participants and beneficiaries in connection with such agreements;
    (6) Monitor compliance with the conditions for this exemption and 
take any appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan and 
its participants and beneficiaries;
    (7) Review and approve in writing, prior to approving the Sale, 
that the amounts of Property Expenses erroneously paid by the Plan from 
2006 through 2014, with associated lost interest as calculated using 
the Department's VFCP Calculator, have been repaid on behalf of Straub 
to the Plan to make the Plan whole, using the Department's applicable 
correction procedures; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 29 CFR parts 2560 and 2570, most recently amended in the 
Federal Register at 90 FR 4192 (January 15, 2025). The Department's 
VFCP Calculator can be found online at <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/correction-programs/vfcp/calculator">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/correction-programs/vfcp/calculator</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (8) Create and deliver to the Department a report (i) justifying 
its conclusion that the Sale is, or is not, in the best interest of the 
Plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and was conducted in 
accordance with the terms of this exemption, (ii) confirming that the 
calculation and repayment of the Property Expenses described in the 
preamble to the notice of proposed exemption \7\ and associated lost 
interest were, or were not, accurately repaid, and (iii) confirming 
that the conditions of the exemption have, or have not, been satisfied 
with copies of any applicable reports needed to make the confirmations. 
The report must be delivered to the Department within 60 days after the 
Sale, or the date the QIF determines that the Sale is not in the 
interest of the Plan, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2d79ffdf7f6f2d6ddde9cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0b5fd9f959490b4bfbcfeb7bfa6">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 90 FR 54387, 54388 (November 26, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) The Plan does not pay any costs associated with the Sale, 
including brokerage commissions, fees, appraisal costs, or any other 
expenses.
    (d) The terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable 
to the Plan as those it would have obtained in an arm's length 
transaction with an unrelated party.
    (e) The QIF must not have entered into, and must not enter into, 
any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any 
provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or 
reimbursement of the QIF by the Plan or other party for any failure to 
adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws 
applicable to the QIF's work; and the QIF may not seek or receive any 
waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies of the Plan under ERISA, 
state, or Federal law against the QIF with respect to the subject 
matter of the exemption;
    (f) The QIA must not have entered into, and must not enter into, 
any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any 
provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or 
reimbursement of the QIA by the Plan or any other party for any failure 
to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws 
applicable to the QIA's work; and the QIA may not seek or obtain any 
waiver of any rights, claims or remedies of the Plan or its 
participants and beneficiaries under ERISA, the Code, or other Federal 
and state laws against the QIA with respect to the subject matter of 
the exemption;
    (g) Prior to the Sale, Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health (on behalf of 
Straub) must pay back to the Plan the Property Expenses the Plan 
erroneously paid from 2006 through 2014, including lost interest, in 
violation of the Lease and PTE 81-71.\8\ Straub or Hawai[revaps]i 
Pacific Health must pay the IRS the legally required excise tax for all 
prohibited transactions conducted by the Plan from 2006 until 2022;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As noted above, Straub previously repaid the Plan the 
Property Expenses the Plan erroneously paid from 2015 through 2022, 
including lost interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) Straub and Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health maintains for a period 
of six (6) years from the date of Sale, in a manner that is convenient 
and accessible for audit and examination, the records necessary to 
enable the persons described in paragraph (i)(1) below to determine 
whether conditions of this exemption have been met, except that (i) a 
prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred merely

[[Page 54387]]

because, due to circumstances beyond the control of Straub, 
Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health, and/or the QIF, the records are lost or 
destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period, and (ii) no party in 
interest other than Straub, Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health or the QIF 
shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under ERISA 
section 502(i) if the records are not maintained, or are not available 
for examination as required by paragraph (i) below;
    (i)(1) Except as provided in Section (2) of this paragraph and 
notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of ERISA 
section 504, the records referred to in paragraph (h) above shall be 
unconditionally available at their customary location during normal 
business hours to:
    (i) any duly authorized employee or representative of the 
Department or the Internal Revenue Service;
    (ii) Straub, Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health or any duly authorized 
representative of Straub or Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health;
    (iii) the QIF or any duly authorized representative of the QIF;
    (iv) any participant or beneficiary of the Plan, or any duly 
authorized representative of such participant or beneficiary;
    (j) Straub, Hawai[revaps]i Pacific Health and/or QIF must provide 
to the Department the records necessary to demonstrate that the 
conditions of the exemption have been met, within 30 days from the date 
the Department requests such records; and
    (k) All the material facts and representations made by the 
Applicant that are set forth in the proposed exemption and this grant 
notice must be true and accurate at all times.
    Exemption date: The exemption will be in effect as of the date the 
grant notice is published in the Federal Register.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of July 2026.
Christopher Motta,
Acting Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits 
Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
[FR Doc. 2026-17142 Filed 8-20-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>