Internal Revenue Bulletin 2010-29 (PDF rendition): IRS Announcements

Preserve advance releases and the authoritative Internal Revenue Bulletin rendition; directory timestamps are file-publication metadata, not legal effective dates. HTML bulletins begin June 2003; earlier available issues require full PDF parsing. Whole bulletin rendition: numbered items are identified below; other legal material and publisher context remain included. This is not a new standalone advance release.

Bulletin No. 201
0-29
July 19, 2010
HIGHLIGHTS
OF THIS ISSUE
These synopses are intended only as aids to the reader in
identifying the subject matter covered. They may not be
relied upon as authoritative interpretations.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Notice 2010–51, page 83.
This notice invites public comments regarding guidance to be
provided to payors and other affected persons concerning the
new requirements under the amendments to section 6041 of
the Code expanding reporting to payments to corporations and
to payments of gross proceeds and with respect to property.
EMPLOYEE PLANS
T.D. 9489, page 55.
REG–118412–10, page 85.
Temporary and proposed regulations under section 9815 of the
Code provide guidance concerning the rules for group health
plans and health insurance coverage relating to status as a
grandfathered health plan under the Affordable Care Act.
EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS
Announcement 2010–45, page 87.
The IRS has revoked its determination that Baby Boomers and
Beyond, Inc., of Denham Springs, LA; Children’s Angelcare Aid
International, Inc., of San Diego, CA; Institute for Unpopular Cul-
ture of San Francisco, CA; Jolene’s Horse Rescue of Palmdale,
CA; Military Order of the Cootie of the US Tent # 20 of Wellston,
OK; Rochester Hills Dance & Arts Society of Rochester Hills,
MI; City Club of Dallas, TX; Four a Foundation an Integrated
Auxiliary of First Baptist Church of Garland, TX; Georgian Com-
munity Services Program, Inc., of Morrow, GA; TARU Gardens,
Inc., of Charlottesville, VA; andUTAH Citizens Alliance of Salt
Lake City, UT, qualify as organizations in sections 501(c)(3) and
170(c)(2) of the Code.
EXCISE TAX
T.D. 9489, page 55.
REG–118412–10, page 85.
Temporary and proposed regulations under section 9815 of the
Code provide guidance concerning the rules for group health
plans and health insurance coverage relating to status as a
grandfathered health plan under the Affordable Care Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Notice 2010–51, page 83.
This notice invites public comments regarding guidance to be
provided to payors and other affected persons concerning the
new requirements under the amendments to section 6041 of
the Code expanding reporting to payments to corporations and
to payments of gross proceeds and with respect to property.
Announcement of Declaratory Judgment Proceedings Under Section 7428 begins on page 87.
Finding Lists begin on page ii.

The IRS Mission
Provide Americ
a’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping
them understa
nd and meet their tax responsibilities and en-
force the law wi
th integrity and fairness to all.
Introduction
The Internal Revenue Bulletin is the authoritative instrument of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for announcing official
rulings and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service and for
publishing Treasury Decisions, Executive Orders, Tax Conven-
tions, legislation, court decisions, and other items of general
interest. It is published weekly and may be obtained from the
Superintendent of Documents on a subscription basis. Bulletin
contents are compiled semiannually into Cumulative Bulletins,
which are sold on a single-copy basis.
It is the policy of the Service to publish in the Bulletin all sub-
stantive rulings necessary to promote a uniform application of
the tax laws, including all rulings that supersede, revoke, mod-
ify, or amend any of those previously published in the Bulletin.
All published rulings apply retroactively unless otherwise indi-
cated. Procedures relating solely to matters of internal man-
agement are not published; however, statements of internal
practices and procedures that affect the rights and duties of
taxpayers are published.
Revenue rulings represent the conclusions of the Service on the
application of the law to the pivotal facts stated in the revenue
ruling. In those based on positions taken in rulings to taxpayers
or technical advice to Service field offices, identifying details
and information of a confidential nature are deleted to prevent
unwarranted invasions of privacy and to comply with statutory
requirements.
Rulings and procedures reported in the Bulletin do not have the
force and effect of Treasury Department Regulations, but they
may be used as precedents. Unpublished rulings will not be
relied on, used, or cited as precedents by Service personnel in
the disposition of other cases. In applying published rulings and
procedures, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations,
court decisions, rulings, and procedures must be considered,
and Service personnel and others concerned are cautioned
against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless
the facts and circumstances are substantially the same.
The Bulletin is divided into four parts as follows:
Part I.—19
86 Code.
This part i
ncludes rulings and decisions based on provisions of
the Intern
al Revenue Code of 1986.
Part II.—Treaties and Tax Legislation.
This part is divided into two subparts as follows: Subpart A,
Tax Conventions and Other Related Items, and Subpart B, Leg-
islation and Related Committee Reports.
Part III.—Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous.
To the extent practicable, pertinent cross references to these
subjects are contained in the other Parts and Subparts. Also
included in this part are Bank Secrecy Act Administrative Rul-
ings. Bank Secrecy Act Administrative Rulings are issued by
the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Assistant Secre-
tary (Enforcement).
Part IV
.—Items of General Interest.
This par
t includes notices of proposed rulemakings, disbar-
ment an
d suspension lists, and announcements.
The last Bulletin for each month includes a cumulative index
for the matters published during the preceding months. These
monthly indexes are cumulated on a semiannual basis, and are
published in the last Bulletin of each semiannual period.
The c
ontents of this publication are not copyrighted and may be reprinted freely. A citation of the Internal Revenue Bulletin as the source would be appropriate.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
July 19, 20102010–29 I.R.B.

Part I. Rulings
and Decisions Under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986
Section 9815.—Additional
Market Reforms
T.D. 9489
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 54 and 602
RIN 1545–BJ51
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Part 2590
RIN 1210–AB42
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
OCIIO–9991–IFC
45 CFR Part 147
RIN 0991–AB68
Interim Final Rules for Group
Health Plans and Health
InsuranceCoverageRelating
to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan under the Patient
Protection and Affordable
Care Act
AGENCIES:Internal Revenue Service,
Department of the Treasury; Employee
Benefits Security Administration, De-
partment of Labor; Office of Consumer
Information and Insurance Oversight, De-
partment of Health and Human Services.
ACTION:Interim final rules with request
for comments.
SUMMARY:This document contains in-
terim final regulations implementing the
rules for group health plans and health in-
surance coverage in the group and indi-
vidual markets under provisions of the Pa-
tient Protection and Affordable Care Act
regarding status as a grandfathered health
plan.
DATES:Effective Date:These in-
terim final regulations are effective on
June 14, 2010, except that the amendments
to 26 CFR 54.9815–2714T, 29 CFR
2590.715–2714, and 45 CFR 147.120 are
effective July 12, 2010.
Comment date.Comments are due on
or before August 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES:Written comments may be
submitted to any of the addresses specified
below. Any comment that is submitted to
any Department will be shared with the
other Departments. Please do not submit
duplicates.
All comments will be made available
to the public.WARNING: Do not in-
clude any personally identifiable informa-
tion (such as name, address, or other con-
tact information) or confidential business
information that you do not want publicly
disclosed. All comments are posted on the
Internet exactly as received, and can be
retrieved by most Internet search engines.
No deletions, modifications, or redactions
will be made to the comments received, as
they are public records. Comments may be
submitted anonymously.
Department of Labor. Comments to the
Department of Labor, identified by RIN
1210–AB42, by one of the following meth-
ods:
•FederaleRulemakingPortal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting com-
ments.
•Email:
E-OHPSCA1251.EBSA@dol.gov.
•Mail or Hand Delivery:Officeof
Health Plan Standards and Compliance
Assistance, Employee Benefits Secu-
rity Administration, Room N–5653,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Con-
stitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20210,Attention: RIN 1210–AB42.
Comments received by the Depart-
ment of Labor will be posted without
change tohttp://www.regulations.govand
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa, and available for
public inspection at the Public Disclosure
Room, N–1513, Employee Benefits Se-
curity Administration, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices. In commenting, please refer to file
code OCIIO–9991–IFC. Because of staff
and resource limitations, the Departments
cannot accept comments by facsimile
(FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (please choose only one of the
ways listed):
1.Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions under the “More Search Op-
tions” tab.
2.By regular mail.Youmaymail
written comments to the following address
ONLY:
Office of Consumer Information and
Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Attention: OCIIO–9991–IFC,
P.O. Box 8016,
Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the close
of the comment period.
3.By express or overnight mail.You
may send written comments to the follow-
ing address ONLY:
Office of Consumer Information and
Insurance Oversight,
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Attention: OCIIO–9991–IFC,
Mail Stop C4–26–05,
7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
4.By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver (by hand or courier) your
written comments before the close of the
comment period to either of the following
addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
Office of Consumer Information and
Insurance Oversight,
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey
Building,
200 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20201
2010–29 I.R.B.55July 19, 2010

(Because access to the interior of the
Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not read-
ily available to persons without Federal
government identification, commenters
are encouraged to leave their comments in
the OCIIO drop slots located in the main
lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is
available for persons wishing to retain a
proof of filing by stamping in and retain-
ing an extra copy of the comments being
filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services,
7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244–1850
If you intend to deliver your comments
to the Baltimore address, please call (410)
786–7195 in advance to schedule your ar-
rival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses in-
dicated as appropriate for hand or courier
delivery may be delayed and received after
the comment period.
Submission of comments on paperwork
requirements. You may submit comments
on this document’s paperwork require-
ments by following the instructions at the
end of the “Collection of Information Re-
quirements” section in this document.
Inspection of Public Comments:All
comments received before the close of the
comment period are available for viewing
by the public, including any personally
identifiable or confidential business in-
formation that is included in a comment.
The Departments post all comments re-
ceived before the close of the comment
period on the following website as soon
as possible after they have been received:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
search instructions on that Web site to
view public comments.
Comments received timely will also
be available for public inspection as they
are received, generally beginning ap-
proximately three weeks after publication
of a document, at the headquarters of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Balti-
more, Maryland 21244, Monday through
Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. EST. To schedule an appoint-
ment to view public comments, phone
1–800–743–3951.
Internal Revenue Service. Comments
to the IRS, identified by REG–118412–10,
by one of the following methods:
•FederaleRulemakingPortal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting com-
ments.
•Mail:CC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG–118412–10), room 5205, Inter-
nal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604,
Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044.
•Hand or courier delivery: Monday
through Friday between the hours of
8a.m.and4p.m.to:CC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG–118412–10), Courier’s Desk,
Internal Revenue Service, 1111
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington
DC 20224.
All submissions to the IRS will be open
to public inspection and copying in room
1621, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:Amy Turner or Beth Baum,
Employee Benefits Security Adminis-
tration, Department of Labor, at (202)
693–8335; Karen Levin, Internal Revenue
Service, Department of the Treasury, at
(202) 622–6080; Jim Mayhew, Office
of Consumer Information and Insurance
Oversight, Department of Health and Hu-
man Services, at (410) 786–1565.
Customer Service Information:In-
dividuals interested in obtaining infor-
mation from the Department of Labor
concerning employment-based health cov-
erage laws may call the EBSA Toll-Free
Hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA (3272) or
visit the Department of Labor’s web-
site (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa). In ad-
dition, information from HHS on pri-
vate health insurance for consumers can
be found on the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services (CMS) website
(http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HealthInsRe-
formforConsume/01_Overview.asp)and
information on health reform can be found
athttp://www.healthreform.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Patient Protection and Afford-
able Care Act (the Affordable Care
Act), Pub. L. 111–148, was enacted
on March 23, 2010; the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act (the
Reconciliation Act), Pub. L. 111–152,
was enacted on March 30, 2010.
The Affordable Care Act and the
Reconciliation Act reorganize, amend,
and add to the provisions in part A of
title XXVII of the Public Health Service
Act (PHS Act) relating to group health
plans and health insurance issuers in the
group and individual markets. The term
“group health plan” includes both insured
and self-insured group health plans.
1
The Affordable Care Act adds section
715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) and section
9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code
(the Code) to incorporate the provisions
of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act
into ERISA and the Code, and make them
applicable to group health plans, and
health insurance issuers providing health
insurance coverage in connection with
group health plans. The PHS Act sections
incorporated by this reference are sections
2701 through 2728. PHS Act sections
2701 through 2719A are substantially new,
though they incorporate some provisions
of prior law. PHS Act sections 2722
through 2728 are sections of prior law
renumbered, with some, mostly minor,
changes. Section 1251 of the Affordable
Care Act, as modified by section 10103 of
the Affordable Care Act and section 2301
of the Reconciliation Act, specifies that
certain plans or coverage existing as of the
date of enactment (that is, grandfathered
health plans) are only subject to certain
provisions.
The Affordable Care Act also adds sec-
tion 715(a)(2) of ERISA, which provides
that, to the extent that any provision of
part 7 of ERISA conflicts with part A of
title XXVII of the PHS Act with respect
to group health plans or group health in-
surance coverage, the PHS Act provisions
apply. Similarly, the Affordable Care Act
adds section 9815(a)(2) of the Code, which
provides that, to the extent that any provi-
1
The term “group health plan” is used in title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code, and is distinct from the term “health plan”,as used in other provisions of
title I of the Affordable Care Act. The term “health plan” does not include self-insured group health plans.
July 19, 2010562010–29 I.R.B.

sion of subchapter B of chapter 100 of the
Code conflicts with part A of title XXVII
of the PHS Act with respect to group health
plans or group health insurance coverage,
the PHS Act provisions apply. There-
fore, although ERISA section 715(a)(1)
and Code section 9815(a)(1) incorporate
by reference new provisions, they do not
affect preexisting sections of ERISA or the
Code unless they cannot be read consis-
tently with an incorporated provision of
the PHS Act. For example, ERISA sec-
tion 732(a) generally provides that part 7
of ERISA — and Code section 9831(a)
generally provides that chapter 100 of the
Code — does not apply to plans with less
than two participants who are current em-
ployees (including retiree-only plans that
cover less than two participants who are
current employees).Prior to enactment
of the Affordable Care Act, the PHS Act
had a parallel provision at section 2721(a).
After the Affordable Care Act amended,
reorganized, and renumbered most of ti-
tle XXVII of the PHS Act, that excep-
tion no longer exists. Similarly, ERISA
section 732(b) and (c) generally provides
that the requirements of part 7 of ERISA
— and Code section 9831(b) and (c) gen-
erally provides that the requirements of
chapter 100 of the Code — do not ap-
ply to excepted benefits.
2
Prior to enact-
ment of the Affordable Care Act, the PHS
Act had a parallel section 2721(c) and (d)
that indicated that the provisions of sub-
parts 1 through 3 of part A of title XXVII
of the PHS Act did not apply to excepted
benefits. After the Affordable Care Act
amended and renumbered PHS Act sec-
tion 2721(c) and (d) as section 2722(b) and
(c), that exception could be read to be nar-
rowed so that it applies only with respect
to subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the
PHS Act, thus, in effect requiring excepted
benefits to comply with subparts I and II of
part A.
The absence of an express provision in
part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act does
not create a conflict with the relevant re-
quirements of ERISA and the Code. Ac-
cordingly, the exceptions of ERISA sec-
tion 732 and Code section 9831 for very
small plans and certain retiree-only health
plans, and for excepted benefits, remain in
effect and, thus, ERISA section 715 and
Code section 9815, as added by the Afford-
able Care Act, do not apply to such plans
or excepted benefits.
Moreover, there is no express indica-
tion in the legislative history of an in-
tent to treat issuers of group health insur-
ance coverage or nonfederal governmen-
tal plans (that are subject to the PHS Act)
any differently in this respect from plans
subject to ERISA and the Code. The De-
partments of Health and Human Services,
Labor, and the Treasury (the Departments)
operate under a Memorandum of Under-
standing (MOU)
3
that implements section
104 of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), en-
acted on August 21, 1996, and subsequent
amendments, and provides that require-
ments over which two or more Secretaries
have responsibility (“shared provisions”)
must be administered so as to have the
same effect at all times. HIPAA section
104 also requires the coordination of poli-
cies relating to enforcing the shared pro-
visionsinordertoavoidduplicationofen-
forcement efforts and to assign priorities in
enforcement.
There is no express statement of intent
that nonfederal governmental retiree-only
plans should be treated differently from
private sector plans or that excepted ben-
efits offered by nonfederal governmental
plans should be treateddifferently from ex-
cepted benefits offered by private sector
plans. Because treating nonfederal gov-
ernmental retiree-only plans and excepted
benefits provided by nonfederal govern-
mental plans differently would create con-
fusion with respect to the obligations of
issuers that do not distinguish whether a
group health plan is subject to ERISA or
the PHS Act, and in light of the MOU,
the Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices (HHS) does not intend to use its
resources to enforce the requirements of
HIPAA or the Affordable Care Act with re-
spect to nonfederal governmental retiree-
only plans or with respect to excepted ben-
efits provided by nonfederal governmental
plans.
PHS Act section 2723(a)(2) (formerly
section 2722(a)(2)) gives the States pri-
mary authority to enforce the PHS Act
group and individual market provisions
over group and individual health insurance
issuers. HHS enforces these provisions
with respect to issuers only if it determines
that the State has “failed to substantially
enforce” one of the Federal provisions.
Furthermore, the PHS Act preemption
provisions allow States to impose re-
quirements on issuers in the group and
individual markets that are more protec-
tive than the Federal provisions. However,
HHS is encouraging States not to apply
the provisions of title XXVII of the PHS
Act to issuers of retiree-only plans or of
excepted benefits. HHS advises States
that if they do not apply these provisions
to the issuers of retiree-only plans or of
excepted benefits, HHS will not cite a
State for failing to substantially enforce
the provisions of part A of title XXVII of
the PHS Act in these situations.
Subtitles A and C of title I of the
Affordable Care Act amend the re-
quirements of title XXVII of the PHS
Act (changes to which are incorporated
into ERISA section 715). The pre-
emption provisions of ERISA section
731 and PHS Act section 2724
4
(im-
plemented in 29 CFR 2590.731(a) and
45 CFR 146.143(a)) apply so that the
requirements of part 7 of ERISA and
title XXVII of PHS Act, as amended by
the Affordable Care Act, are not to be
“construed to supersede any provision of
State law which establishes, implements,
or continues in effect any standard or
requirement solely relating to health
insurance issuers in connection with group
or individual health insurance coverage
except to the extent that such standard or
requirement prevents the application of a
requirement” of the Affordable Care Act.
Accordingly, State laws that impose on
health insurance issuers requirements that
are stricter than the requirements imposed
bytheAffordableCareActwillnotbe
superseded by the Affordable Care Act.
2
Excepted benefits generally include dental-only and vision-only plans, most health flexible spending arrangements, Medigap policies, and accidental death and dismemberment coverage.
For more information on excepted benefits, see 26 CFR 54.9831–1, 29 CFR 2590.732, 45 CFR 146.145, and 45 CFR 148.220.
3
See64 FR 70164 (December 15, 1999).
4
Code section 9815 incorporates the preemption provisions of PHS Act section 2724. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, there were no express preemption provisions in chapter 100 of the
Code.
2010–29 I.R.B.57July 19, 2010

The Departments are issuing regula-
tions implementing the revised PHS Act
sections 2701 through 2719A in several
phases. The first publication in this series
was a Request for Information relating to
the medical loss ratio provisions of PHS
Act section 2718, published in theFed-
eral Registeron April 14, 2010 (75 FR
19297). The second publication was in-
terim final regulations implementing PHS
Act section 2714 (requiring dependent
coverage of children to age 26), published
in theFederal Registeron May 13, 2010
(T.D. 9482, 2010–22 I.R.B. 698 [75 FR
27122]). This document contains interim
final regulations implementing section
1251 of the Affordable Care Act (relating
to grandfathered health plans), as well as
adding a cross-reference to these interim
final regulations in the regulations im-
plementing PHS Act section 2714. The
implementation of other provisions in PHS
Act sections 2701 through 2719A will be
addressed in future regulations.
II. Overview of the Regulations:
Section 1251 of the Affordable
Care Act, Preservation of Right to
Maintain Existing Coverage (26 CFR
54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715–1251,
and 45 CFR 147.140)
A.Introduction
Section 1251 of the Affordable Care
Act, as modified by section 10103 of the
Affordable Care Act and section 2301 of
the Reconciliation Act, provides that cer-
tain group health plans and health insur-
ance coverage existing as of March 23,
2010 (the date of enactment of the Afford-
able Care Act), are subject only to certain
provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The
statute and these interim final regulations
refer to these plans and health insurance
coverage as grandfathered health plans.
The Affordable Care Act balances the
objective of preserving the ability of in-
dividuals to maintain their existing cov-
erage with the goals of ensuring access
to affordable essential coverage and im-
proving the quality of coverage. Section
1251 provides that nothing in the Afford-
able Care Act requires an individual to ter-
minate the coverage in which the individ-
ual was enrolled on March 23, 2010. It
also generally provides that, with respect
to group health plans or health insurance
coverage in which an individual was en-
rolled on March 23, 2010, various require-
ments of the Act shall not apply to such
plan or coverage, regardless of whether
the individual renews such coverage af-
ter March 23, 2010. However, to ensure
access to coverage with certain particu-
larly significant protections, Congress re-
quired grandfathered health plans to com-
ply with a subset of the Affordable Care
Act’s health reform provisions. Thus, for
example, grandfathered health plans must
comply with the prohibition on rescissions
of coverage except in the case of fraud or
intentional misrepresentation and the elim-
ination of lifetime limits (both of which
apply for plan years, or in the individual
market, policy years, beginning on or after
September 23, 2010). On the other hand,
grandfathered health plans are not required
to comply with certain other requirements
of the Affordable Care Act; for example,
the requirement thatpreventive health ser-
vices be covered without any cost sharing
(which otherwise becomes generally ap-
plicable for plan years, or in the individual
market, policy years, beginning on or after
September 23, 2010).
A number of additional reforms apply
for plan years (in the individual market,
policy years) beginning on or after Jan-
uary 1, 2014. As with the requirements
effective for plan years (in the individual
market, policy years) beginning on or after
September 23, 2010, grandfathered health
plans must then comply with some, but not
all of these reforms. See Table 1 in section
II.D of this preamble for a list of various
requirements that apply to grandfathered
health plans.
In making grandfathered health plans
subject to some but not all of the health
reforms contained in the Affordable Care
Act, the statute balances its objective of
preserving the ability to maintain existing
coverage with the goals of expanding ac-
cess to and improving the quality of health
coverage. The statute does not, however,
address at what point changes to a group
health plan or health insurance coverage
in which an individual was enrolled on
March 23, 2010 are significant enough to
cause the plan or health insurance cover-
age to cease to be a grandfathered health
plan, leaving that question to be addressed
by regulatory guidance.
These interim final regulations are de-
signed to ease the transition of the health-
care industry into the reforms established
bytheAffordableCareActbyallowing
for gradual implementation of reforms
through a reasonable grandfathering rule.
A more detailed description of the basis
for these interim final regulations and
other regulatory alternatives considered
is included in section IV.B later in this
preamble.
B.Definition of Grandfathered Health
Plan Coverage in Paragraph (a) of
26 CFR 54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR
2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR 147.140 of
these Interim Final Regulations
Under the statute and these interim
final regulations, a group health plan
or group or individual health insur-
ance coverage is a grandfathered health
plan with respect to individuals enrolled
on March 23, 2010. Paragraph (a)(1)
of 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR
2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR 147.140 of
these interim final regulations provides
that a group health plan or group health
insurance coverage does not cease to
be grandfathered health plan coverage
merely because one or more (or even all)
individuals enrolled on March 23, 2010
cease to be covered, provided that the
plan or group health insurance coverage
has continuously covered someone since
March 23, 2010 (not necessarily the same
person, but at all times at least one person).
The determination under the rules of
these interim final regulations is made
separately with respect to each benefit
package made available under a group
health plan or health insurance coverage.
Moreover, these interim final regula-
tions provide that, subject to the rules of
paragraph (f) of 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T,
29 CFR 2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR
147.140 for collectively bargained plans,
if an employer or employee organiza-
tion enters into a new policy, certificate,
or contract of insurance after March 23,
2010 (because, for example, any pre-
vious policy, certificate, or contract of
insurance is not being renewed), then that
policy, certificate, or contract of insur-
ance is not a grandfathered health plan
with respect to the individuals in the
group health plan. Any policies sold in
the group and individual health insurance
markets to new entities or individuals after
March 23, 2010 will not be grandfathered
July 19, 2010582010–29 I.R.B.

health plans even if the health insurance
products sold to those subscribers were
offered in the group or individual market
before March 23, 2010.
To maintain status as a grandfathered
health plan, a plan or health insurance
coverage (1) must include a statement,
in any plan materials provided to partic-
ipants or beneficiaries (in the individual
market, primary subscribers) describing
the benefits provided under the plan or
health insurance coverage, that the plan or
health insurance coverage believes that it
is a grandfathered health plan within the
meaning of section 1251 of the Affordable
Care Act and (2) must provide contact
information for questions and complaints.
Model language is provided in these in-
terim final regulations that can be used to
satisfy this disclosure requirement. Com-
ments are invited on possible improve-
ments to the model language of grandfa-
thered health plan status. Some have sug-
gested, for example, that each grandfa-
thered health plan be required to list and
describe the various consumer protections
that do not apply to the plan or health insur-
ance coverage because it is grandfathered,
together with their effective dates. The
Departments intend to consider any com-
ments regarding possible improvements to
the model language in the near term; any
changes to the model language that may
result from such comments could be pub-
lished in additional administrative guid-
ance other than in the form of regulations.
Similarly, under these interim final
regulations, to maintain status as a grand-
fathered health plan, a plan or issuer must
also maintain records documenting the
terms of the plan or health insurance cov-
erage that were in effect on March 23,
2010, and any other documents necessary
to verify, explain, or clarify its status as
a grandfathered health plan. Such doc-
uments could include intervening and
current plan documents, health insur-
ance policies, certificates or contracts of
insurance, summary plan descriptions,
documentation of premiums or the cost of
coverage, and documentation of required
employee contribution rates. In addition,
the plan or issuer must make such records
available for examination. Accordingly,
a participant, beneficiary, individual pol-
icy subscriber, or State or Federal agency
official would be able to inspect such doc-
uments to verify the status of the plan or
health insurance coverage as a grandfa-
thered health plan. The plan or issuer must
maintain such records and make them
available for examination for as long as
the plan or issuer takes the position that
the plan or health insurance coverage is a
grandfathered health plan.
Under the statute and these interim fi-
nal regulations, if family members of an
individual who is enrolled in a grandfa-
thered health plan as of March 23, 2010
enroll in the plan after March 23, 2010, the
plan or health insurance coverage is also a
grandfathered health plan with respect to
the family members.
C.Adding New Employees in Paragraph
(b) of 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR
2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR 147.140 of
these Interim Final Regulations
These interim final regulations at
26 CFR 54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR
2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR 147.140 pro-
vide that a group health plan that provided
coverage on March 23, 2010 generally
is also a grandfathered health plan with
respect to new employees (whether newly
hired or newly enrolled) and their families
who enroll in the grandfathered health
plan after March 23, 2010. These interim
final regulations clarify that in such cases,
any health insurance coverage provided
under the group health plan in which an in-
dividual was enrolled on March 23, 2010
is also a grandfathered health plan. To pre-
vent abuse, these interim final regulations
provide that if the principal purpose of a
merger, acquisition, or similar business
restructuring is to cover new individuals
under a grandfathered health plan, the plan
ceases to be a grandfathered health plan.
The goal of this rule is to prevent grand-
father status from being bought and sold
as a commodity in commercial transac-
tions. These interim final regulations also
contain a second anti-abuse rule designed
to prevent a plan or issuer from circum-
venting the limits on changes that cause a
plan or health insurance coverage to cease
to be a grandfathered health plan under
paragraph (g) (described more fully in
section II.F of this preamble). This rule in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) addresses a situation
under which employees who previously
were covered by a grandfathered health
plan are transferred to another grandfa-
thered health plan. This rule is intended to
prevent efforts to retain grandfather status
by indirectly making changes that would
result in loss of that status if those changes
were made directly.
D.Applicability of Part A of Title XXVII
of the PHS Act to Grandfathered Health
Plans Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)
of 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR
2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR 147.140 of
these Interim Final Regulations
A grandfathered health plan generally
is not subject to subtitles A and C of title
I of the Affordable Care Act, except as
specifically provided by the statute and
these interim final regulations. The statute
and these interim final regulations provide
that some provisions of subtitles A and C
of title I of the Affordable Care Act con-
tinue to apply to all grandfathered health
plans and some provisions continue to ap-
plyonlytograndfatheredhealthplansthat
are group health plans. These interim final
regulations clarify that a grandfathered
health plan must continue to comply with
the requirements of the PHS Act, ERISA,
and the Code that were applicable prior
to the changes enacted by the Affordable
Care Act, except to the extent supplanted
by changes made by the Affordable Care
Act. Therefore, the HIPAA portability and
nondiscrimination requirements and the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act requirements applicable prior to the
effective date of the Affordable Care Act
continue to apply to grandfathered health
plans. In addition, the mental health parity
provisions, the Newborns’ and Moth-
ers’ Health Protection Act provisions, the
Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act,
and Michelle’s Law continue to apply to
grandfathered health plans. The following
table lists the new health coverage reforms
in part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act
(as amended by the Affordable Care Act)
that apply to grandfathered health plans:
2010–29 I.R.B.59July 19, 2010

TABLE 1.—List of the New Health Reform Provisions of Part A of Title XXVII of the PHS Act that Apply to Grandfathered
Health Plans
PHS Act Statutory ProvisionsApplication to Grandfathered Health Plans
§2704 Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusion or other
discrimination based on health status
Applicable to grandfathered group health plans and group
health insurance coverage.
Not applicable to grandfathered individual health insurance
coverage.
§2708 Prohibition on excessive waiting periodsApplicable
§2711 No lifetime or annual limitsLifetime limits: Applicable
Annual limits: Applicable to grandfathered group health
plans and group health insurance coverage; not applicable to
grandfathered individual health insurance coverage.
§2712 Prohibition on rescissionsApplicable
§2714 Extension of dependent coverage until age 26Applicable
5
§2715 Development and utilization of uniform explanation of
coverage documents and standardized definitions
Applicable
§2718 Bringing down cost of health care coverage (for insured
coverage)
Applicable to insured grandfathered health plans.
E.Health Insurance Coverage Maintained
Pursuant to a Collective Bargaining
AgreementofParagraph(f)of26CFR
54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715–1251,
and 45 CFR 147.140 of these Interim
Final Regulations
In paragraph (f) of 26 CFR
54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715–1251,
and 45 CFR 147.140, these interim final
regulations provide that in the case of
health insurance coverage maintained
pursuant to one or more collective
bargaining agreements ratified before
March 23, 2010, the coverage is a
grandfathered health plan at least until
the date on which the last agreement
relating to the coverage that was in effect
on March 23, 2010 terminates. Thus,
before the last of the applicable collective
bargaining agreement terminates, any
health insurance coverage provided
pursuant to the collective bargaining
agreements is a grandfathered health plan,
even if there is a change in issuers (or
any other change described in paragraph
(g)(1) of 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T,
29 CFR 2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR
147.140 of these interim final regulations)
during the period of the agreement. The
statutory language of the provision refers
solely to “health insurance coverage”
and does not refer to a group health
plan; therefore, these interim final
regulations apply this provision only to
insured plans maintained pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement and not
to self-insured plans. After the date on
which the last of the collective bargaining
agreements terminates, the determination
of whether health insurance coverage
maintained pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement is grandfathered
health plan coverage is made under the
rules of paragraph (g). This determination
is made by comparing the terms of the
coverage on the date of determination
with the terms of the coverage that were
in effect on March 23, 2010. A change in
issuers during the period of the agreement,
by itself, would not cause the plan to
cease to be a grandfathered health plan
at the termination of the agreement.
However, for a change in issuers after
the termination of the agreement, the
rules of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 26 CFR
54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715–1251,
and 45 CFR 147.140 of these interim final
regulations apply.
Similar language to section 1251(d) in
related bills that were not enacted would
have provided a delayed effective date for
collectively bargained plans with respect
to the Affordable Care Act requirements.
Questions have arisen as to whether sec-
tion 1251(d) as enacted in the Affordable
Care Act similarly operated to delay the
application of the Affordable Care Act’s
requirements to collectively bargained
plans — specifically, whether the pro-
vision of section 1251(d) that exempts
collectively bargained plans from require-
ments for the duration of the agreement
effectively provides the plans with a de-
layed effective date with respect to all new
PHS Act requirements (in contrast to the
rules for grandfathered health plans which
provide that specified PHS Act provisions
apply to all plans, including grandfathered
health plans). However, the statutory lan-
guage that applies only to collectively
bargained plans, as signed into law as
part of the Affordable Care Act, provides
that insured collectively bargained plans
in which individuals were enrolled on
the date of enactment are included in the
5
For a group health plan or group health insurance coverage that is a grandfathered health plan for plan years beginning before January 1, 2014, PHS Act section 2714 is applicable in the
case of an adult child only if the adult child is not eligible for other employer-sponsored health plan coverage. The interim final regulations relating to PHS Act section 2714, published in
75 FR 27122 (May 13, 2010), and these interim final regulations clarify that, in the case of an adult child who is eligible for coverage under the employer-sponsored plans of both parents,
neither parent’s plan may exclude the adult child from coverage based on the fact that the adult child is eligible to enroll in the other parent’s employer-sponsored plan.
July 19, 2010602010–29 I.R.B.

definition of a grandfathered health plan.
Therefore, collectively bargained plans
(both insured and self-insured) that are
grandfathered health plans are subject to
the same requirements as other grandfa-
thered health plans, and are not provided
with a delayed effective date for PHS Act
provisions with which other grandfathered
health plans must comply. Thus, the pro-
visions that apply to grandfathered health
plans apply to collectively bargained plans
before and after termination of the last of
the applicable collective bargaining agree-
ment.
F.Maintenance of Grandfather Status of
Paragraph (g) of 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T,
29 CFR 2590.715–1251, and 45
CFR 147.140 of these Interim Final
Regulations)
Questions have arisen regarding the ex-
tent to which changes can be made to a
plan or health insurance coverage and still
have the plan or coverage considered the
same as that in existence on March 23,
2010, so as to maintain status as a grandfa-
thered health plan. Some have suggested
that any change would cause a plan or
health insurance coverage to be considered
different and thus cease to be a grandfa-
thered health plan. Others have suggested
that any degree of change, no matter how
large, is irrelevant provided the plan or
health insurance coverage can trace some
continuous legal relationship to the plan or
health insurance coverage that was in ex-
istence on March 23, 2010.
In paragraph (g)(1) of 26 CFR
54.9815–1251T, 29 CFR 2590.715–1251,
and 45 CFR 147.140 of these interim final
regulations, coordinated rules are set forth
for determining when changes to the terms
of a plan or health insurance coverage
cause the plan or coverage to cease to be
a grandfathered health plan. The first of
those rules (in paragraph (g)(1)(i)) con-
strains the extent to which the scope of
benefits can be reduced. It provides that
the elimination of all or substantially all
benefits to diagnose or treat a particular
condition causes a plan or health insurance
coverage to cease to be a grandfathered
health plan. If, for example, a plan elim-
inates all benefits for cystic fibrosis, the
plan ceases to be a grandfathered health
plan (even though this condition may af-
fect relatively few individuals covered
under the plan). Moreover, for purposes
of paragraph (g)(1)(i), the elimination of
benefits for any necessary element to di-
agnose or treat a condition is considered
the elimination of all or substantially all
benefits to diagnose or treat a particular
condition. An example in these interim
final regulations illustrates that if a plan
provides benefits for a particular mental
health condition, the treatment for which is
a combination of counseling and prescrip-
tion drugs, and subsequently eliminates
benefits for counseling, the plan is treated
as having eliminated all or substantially all
benefits for that mental health condition.
A second set of rules (in paragraphs
(g)(1)(ii) through (g)(1)(iv)) limits the ex-
tent to which plans and issuers can in-
crease the fixed-amount and the percent-
age cost-sharing requirements that are im-
posed with respect to individuals for cov-
ered items and services. Plans and issuers
can choose to make larger increases to
fixed-amount or percentage cost-sharing
requirements than permissible under these
interim final regulations, but at that point
the individual’s plan or health insurance
coverage would cease to be grandfathered
health plan coverage. A more detailed de-
scription of the basis for the cost-sharing
requirements in these interim final regula-
tions is included in section IV.B later in this
preamble.
These interim final regulations pro-
vide different standards with respect to
coinsurance and fixed-amount cost shar-
ing. Coinsurance automatically rises with
medical inflation. Therefore, changes to
thelevelof coinsurance (such as moving
from a requirement that the patient pay
20 percent to a requirement that the pa-
tient pay 30 percent of inpatient surgery
costs) would significantly alter the level
of benefits provided. On the other hand,
fixed-amount cost-sharing requirements
(such as copayments and deductibles)
do not take into account medical infla-
tion. Therefore, changes to fixed-amount
cost-sharing requirements (for example,
moving from a $35 copayment to a $40
copayment for outpatient doctor visits)
may be reasonable to keep up with the
rising cost of medical items and services.
Accordingly, paragraph (g)(1)(ii) provides
that any increase in a percentage cost-shar-
ing requirement (such as coinsurance)
causes a plan or health insurance coverage
to cease to be a grandfathered health plan.
With respect to fixed-amount cost-shar-
ing requirements, paragraph (g)(1)(iii)
provides two rules: a rule for cost-shar-
ing requirements other than copayments
and a rule for copayments. Fixed-amount
cost-sharing requirements include, for
example, a $500 deductible, a $30 co-
payment, or a $2,500 out-of-pocket limit.
With respect to fixed-amount cost-sharing
requirements other than copayments, a
plan or health insurance coverage ceases
to be a grandfathered health plan if there
is an increase, since March 23, 2010, in
a fixed-amount cost-sharing requirement
that is greater than the maximum percent-
age increase. The maximum percentage
increase is defined asmedical inflation
(from March 23, 2010) plus 15 percentage
points. For this purpose, medical inflation
is defined in these interim final regula-
tions by reference to the overall medical
care component of the Consumer Price In-
dex for All Urban Consumers, unadjusted
(CPI), published by the Department of
Labor. For fixed-amount copayments, a
plan or health insurance coverage ceases
to be a grandfathered health plan if there
is an increase since March 23, 2010 in the
copayment that exceeds the greater of (A)
the maximum percentage increase or (B)
five dollars increasedby medical inflation.
A more detailed description of the basis
for these rules relating to cost-sharing
requirements is included in section IV.B
later in this preamble.
With respect to employer contributions,
these interim final regulations include a
standard for changes that would result in
cessation of grandfather status. Specifi-
cally, paragraph (g)(1)(v) limits the ability
of an employer or employee organization
to decrease its contribution rate for cov-
erage under a group health plan or group
health insurance coverage. Two different
situations are addressed. First, if the con-
tribution rate is based on the cost of cov-
erage, a group health plan or group health
insurance coverage ceases to be a grandfa-
thered health plan if the employer or em-
ployee organization decreases its contribu-
tion rate towards the cost of any tier of
coverage for any class of similarly situ-
ated individuals
6
by more than 5 percent-
6
Similarly situated individuals are described in the HIPAA nondiscrimination regulations at 26 CFR 54.9802–1(d), 29 CFR 2590.702(d), and 45 CFR 146.121(d).
2010–29 I.R.B.61July 19, 2010

age points below the contribution rate on
March 23, 2010. For this purpose, con-
tribution rate is defined as the amount of
contributions made by an employer or em-
ployee organization compared to the to-
tal cost of coverage, expressed as a per-
centage. These interim final regulations
provide that total cost of coverage is de-
termined in the same manner as the ap-
plicable premium is calculated under the
COBRA continuation provisions of sec-
tion 604 of ERISA, section 4980B(f)(4) of
the Code, and section 2204 of the PHS Act.
In the case of a self-insured plan, contribu-
tions by an employer or employee organ-
ization are calculated by subtracting the
employee contributions towards the total
cost of coverage from the total cost of cov-
erage. Second, if the contribution rate is
based on a formula, such as hours worked
or tons of coal mined, a group health plan
or group health insurance coverage ceases
to be a grandfathered health plan if the em-
ployer or employee organization decreases
its contribution rate towards the cost of any
tier of coverage for any class of similarly
situated individuals by more than 5 percent
below the contribution rate on March 23,
2010.
Finally, paragraph (g)(1)(vi) addresses
the imposition of a new or modified an-
nual limit by a plan, or group or individual
health insurance coverage.
7
Three differ-
ent situations are addressed:
•A plan or health insurance coverage
that, on March 23, 2010, did not im-
pose an overall annual or lifetime
limit on the dollar value of all benefits
ceases to be a grandfathered health
plan if the plan or health insurance
coverage imposes an overall annual
limit on the dollar value of benefits.
•A plan or health insurance coverage,
that, on March 23, 2010, imposed
an overall lifetime limit on the dollar
value of all benefits but no overall
annual limit on the dollar value of all
benefits ceases to be a grandfathered
health plan if the plan or health insur-
ance coverage adopts an overall annual
limitatadollarvaluethatislowerthan
the dollar value of the lifetime limit on
March 23, 2010.
•A plan or health insurance coverage
that, on March 23, 2010, imposed an
overall annual limit on the dollar value
of all benefits ceases to be a grandfa-
thered health plan if the plan or health
insurance coverage decreases the dol-
lar value of the annual limit (regardless
of whether the plan or health insurance
coverage also imposed an overall life-
time limit on March 23, 2010 on the
dollar value of all benefits).
Under these interim final regula-
tions, changes other than the changes de-
scribed in 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T(g)(1),
29 CFR 2590.715–1251(g)(1), and
45 CFR 147.140(g)(1) will not cause a plan
or coverage to cease to be a grandfathered
health plan. Examples include changes to
premiums, changes to comply with Federal
or State legal requirements, changes to
voluntarily comply with provisions of
the Affordable Care Act, and changing
third party administrators, provided these
changes are made without exceeding the
standards established by paragraph (g)(1).
These interim final regulations provide
transitional rules for plans and issuers that
made changes after the enactment of the
Affordable Care Act pursuant to a legally
binding contract entered into prior to en-
actment, made changes to the terms of
health insurance coverage pursuant to a fil-
ing before March 23, 2010 with a State in-
surance department, or made changes pur-
suant to written amendments to a plan that
were adopted prior to March 23, 2010.
If a plan or issuer makes changes in any
of these situations, the changes are effec-
tively considered part of the plan terms on
March 23, 2010 even though they are not
then effective. Therefore, such changes
are not taken into account in considering
whether the plan or health insurance cov-
erage remains a grandfathered health plan.
Because status as a grandfathered
health plan under section 1251 of the Af-
fordable Care Act is determined in relation
to coverage on March 23, 2010, the date
of enactment of the Affordable Care Act,
the Departments considered whether they
should provide a good faith compliance
period from Departmental enforcement
until guidance regarding the standards for
maintaining grandfather status was made
available to the public. Group health plans
and health insurance issuers often make
routine changes from year to year, and
some plans and issuers may have needed
to implement such changes prior to the
issuance of these interim final regulations.
Accordingly, for purposes of enforce-
ment, the Departments will take into
account good-faith efforts to comply with
a reasonable interpretation of the statutory
requirements and may disregard changes
to plan and policy terms that only modestly
exceed those changes described in para-
graph (g)(1) of 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T,
29 CFR 2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR
147.140 and that are adopted before June
14, 2010, the date the regulations were
made publicly available.
In addition, these interim final reg-
ulations provide employers and issuers
with a grace period within which to re-
voke or modify any changes adopted
prior to June 14, 2010, where the changes
might otherwise cause the plan or health
insurance coverage to cease to be a
grandfathered health plan. Under this
rule, grandfather status is preserved if the
changes are revoked, and the plan or health
insurance coverage is modified, effective
as of the first day of the first plan or policy
year beginning on or after September 23,
2010 to bring the terms within the limits
for retaining grandfather status in these
interim final regulations. For this purpose,
and for purposes of the reasonable good
faith standard changes will be considered
to have been adopted before these interim
final regulations are publicly available if
the changes are effective before that date,
the changes are effective on or after that
date pursuant to a legally binding contract
entered into before that date, the changes
are effective on or after that date pursuant
to a filing before that date with a State
insurance department, or the changes are
effective on or after that date pursuant to
written amendments to a plan that were
adopted before that date.
While the Departments have deter-
mined that the changes identified in para-
graph (g)(1) of these interim final regula-
tions would cause a group health plan or
health insurance coverage to cease to be
a grandfathered health plan, the Depart-
ments invite comments from the public on
7
Independent of these rules regarding the impact on grandfather status of newly adopted or reduced annual limits, group health plans and group or individual health insurance coverage
(other than individual health insurance policies that are grandfathered health plans) are required to comply with PHS Act section 2711, which permits restricted annual limits (as defined in
regulations) until 2014. The Departments expect to publish regulations regarding restricted annual limits in the very near future.
July 19, 2010622010–29 I.R.B.

whether this list of changes is appropriate
and what other changes, if any, should be
added to this list. Specifically, the De-
partments invite comments on whether the
following changes should result in ces-
sation of grandfathered health plan status
for a plan or health insurance coverage:
(1) changes to plan structure (such as
switching from a health reimbursement
arrangement to major medical coverage or
from an insured product to a self-insured
product); (2) changes in a network plan’s
provider network, and if so, what magni-
tude of changes would have to be made;
(3) changes to a prescription drug formu-
lary, and if so, what magnitude of changes
would have to be made; or (4) any other
substantial change to the overall benefit
design. In addition, the Departments in-
vite comments on the specific standards
included in these interim final regulations
on benefits, cost sharing, and employer
contributions. The Departments specifi-
cally invite comments on whether these
standards should be drawn differently in
light of the fact that changes made by the
Affordable Care Act may alter plan or
issuer practices in the next several years.
Any new standards published in the final
regulations that are more restrictive than
these interim final regulations would only
apply prospectively to changes to plans or
health insurance coverage after the publi-
cation of the final rules.
Moreover, the Departments may issue,
as appropriate, additional administrative
guidance other than in the form of reg-
ulations to clarify or interpret the rules
contained in these interim final regula-
tions for maintaining grandfathered health
plan status prior to the issuance of final
regulations. The ability to issue prompt,
clarifying guidance is especially important
given the uncertainty as to how plans or
issuers will alter their plans or policies in
response to these rules. This guidance can
address unanticipated changes by plans
and issuers to ensure that individuals ben-
efit from the Affordable Care Act’s new
health care protections while preserving
the ability to maintain the coverage indi-
viduals had on the date of enactment.
III. Interim Final Regulations and
Request for Comments
Section 9833 of the Code, section 734
of ERISA, and section 2792 of the PHS
Act authorize the Secretaries of the Trea-
sury, Labor, and HHS (collectively, the
Secretaries) to promulgate any interim fi-
nal rules that they determine are appropri-
ate to carry out the provisions of chapter
100 of the Code, part 7 of subtitle B of ti-
tle I of ERISA, and part A of title XXVII of
the PHS Act, which include PHS Act sec-
tions 2701 through 2728 and the incorpo-
ration of those sections into ERISA section
715 and Code section 9815. The rules set
forth in these interim final regulations gov-
ern the applicability of the requirements in
these sections and are therefore appropri-
ate to carry them out. Therefore, the fore-
going interim final rule authority applies to
these interim final regulations.
In addition, under Section 553(b) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
(5 U.S.C. 551et seq.) a general notice
of proposed rulemaking is not required
when an agency, for good cause, finds that
notice and public comment thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. The provisions of
the APA that ordinarily require a notice
of proposed rulemaking do not apply here
because of the specific authority granted
by section 9833 of the Code, section 734
ofERISA,andsection2792ofthePHS
Act. However, even if the APA were ap-
plicable, the Secretaries have determined
that it would be impracticable and con-
trary to the public interest to delay putting
the provisions in these interim final reg-
ulations in place until a full public notice
and comment process was completed.
As noted above, numerous provisions of
the Affordable Care Act are applicable
for plan years (in the individual mar-
ket, policy years) beginning on or after
September 23, 2010, six months after date
of enactment. Grandfathered health plans
are exempt from many of these provisions
while group health plans and group and
individual health insurance coverage that
are not grandfathered health plans must
comply with them. The determination
of whether a plan or health insurance
coverage is a grandfathered health plan
therefore could substantially affect the
design of the plan or health insurance
coverage.
The six-month period between the en-
actment of the Affordable Care Act and
the applicability of many of the provisions
affected by grandfather status would not
allow sufficient time for the Departments
to draft and publish proposed regulations,
receive and consider comments, and draft
and publish final regulations. Moreover,
regulations are needed well in advance
of the effective date of the requirements
oftheAffordableCareAct. Manygroup
health plans and health insurance cov-
erage that are not grandfathered health
plans must make significant changes in
their provisions to comply with the re-
quirements of the Affordable Care Act.
Moreover, plans and issuers considering
other modifications to their terms need to
know whether those modifications will
affect their status as grandfathered health
plans. Accordingly, in order to allow
plans and health insurance coverage to
be designed and implemented on a timely
basis, regulations must be published and
available to the public well in advance of
the effective date of the requirements of
the Affordable Care Act. It is not possible
to have a full notice and comment process
and to publish final regulations in the brief
time between enactment of the Afford-
able Care Act and the date regulations are
needed.
The Secretaries further find that is-
suance of proposed regulations would not
be sufficient because the provisions of the
Affordable Care Act protect significant
rights of plan participants and beneficia-
ries and individuals covered by individual
health insurance policies and it is essential
that participants, beneficiaries, insureds,
plan sponsors, and issuers have certainty
about their rights and responsibilities.
Proposed regulations are not binding and
cannot provide the necessary certainty.
By contrast, the interim final regulations
provide the public with an opportunity for
comment, but without delaying the effec-
tive date of the regulations.
For the foregoing reasons, the Depart-
ments have determined that it is imprac-
ticable and contrary to the public interest
to engage in full notice and comment rule-
making before putting these regulations
into effect, and that it is in the public inter-
est to promulgate interim final regulations.
2010–29 I.R.B.63July 19, 2010

IV. Economic Impact and Paperwork
Burden
A.Overview-Department of Labor
and Department of Health and Human
Services
As stated earlier in this preamble, these
interim final regulations implement sec-
tion 1251 of the Affordable Care Act, as
modified by section 10103 of the Afford-
able Care Act and section 2301 of the Rec-
onciliation Act. Pursuant to section 1251,
certain provisions of the Affordable Care
Actdonotapplytoagrouphealthplanor
health insurance coverage in which an in-
dividual was enrolled on March 23, 2010
(a grandfathered health plan).
8
The statute
and these interim final regulations allow
family members of individuals already en-
rolled in a grandfathered health plan to en-
roll in the plan after March 23, 2010; in
such cases, the plan or coverage is also
a grandfathered health plan with respect
to the family members. New employees
(whether newly hired or newly enrolled)
and their families can enroll in a grandfa-
thered group health plan after March 23,
2010 without affecting status as a grandfa-
thered health plan.
9
As addressed earlier in this preamble,
and further discussed below, these interim
final regulations include rules for deter-
mining whether changes to the terms of a
grandfathered health plan made by issuers
and plan sponsors allow the plan or health
insurance coverage to remain a grandfa-
thered health plan. These rules are the pri-
mary focus of this regulatory impact anal-
ysis.
The Departments have quantified the
effects where possible and provided a qual-
itative discussion of the economic effects
and some of the transfers and costs that
may result from these interim final regu-
lations.
B.Executive Order 12866—Department
of Labor and Department of Health and
Human Services
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735), “significant” regulatory actions
are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Section
3(f) of the Executive Order defines a “sig-
nificant regulatory action” as an action
that is likely to result in a rule (1) having
an annual effect on the economy of $100
millionormoreinanyoneyear,orad-
versely and materially affecting a sector
of the economy, productivity, competi-
tion, jobs, the environment, public health
or safety, or State, local or tribal govern-
ments or communities (also referred to as
“economically significant”); (2) creating
a serious inconsistency or otherwise inter-
fering 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 aris-
ing out of legal mandates, the President’s
priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order. OMB has determined
that this regulation is economically signif-
icant within the meaning of section 3(f)(1)
of the Executive Order, because it is likely
to have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million in any one year. Accordingly,
OMB has reviewed these rules pursuant
to the Executive Order. The Departments
provide an assessment of the potential
costs, benefits, and transfers associated
with these interim final regulations below.
The Departments invite comments on this
assessment and its conclusions.
1.Need for Regulatory Action
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act,
as modified by section 10103 of the Af-
fordable Care Act and section 2301 of the
Reconciliation Act, provides that grand-
fathered health plans are subject only to
certain provisions of the Affordable Care
Act. The statute, however, is silent re-
garding changes plan sponsors and issuers
can make to plans and health insurance
coverage while retaining grandfather sta-
tus. These interim final regulations are
necessary in order to provide rules that
plan sponsors and issuers can use to de-
termine which changes they can make to
the terms of the plan or health insurance
coverage while retaining their grandfather
status, thus exempting them from certain
provisions of the Affordable Care Act and
fulfilling a goal of the legislation, which
is to allow those that like their healthcare
to keep it. These interim final regulations
are designed to allow individuals who wish
to maintain their current health insurance
plan to do so, to reduce short term disrup-
tions in the market, and to ease the transi-
tion to market reforms that phase in over
time.
In drafting this rule,the Departments at-
tempted to balance a number of competing
interests. For example, the Departments
sought to provide adequate flexibility to
plan sponsors and issuers to ease transition
and mitigate potential premium increases
while avoiding excessive flexibility that
would conflict with the goal of permit-
ting individuals who like their healthcare
to keep it and mightlead to longer term
market segmentation as the least costly
plans remain grandfathered the longest.
In addition, the Departments recognized
that many plan sponsors and issuers make
changes to the terms of plans or health
insurance coverage on an annual basis:
premiums fluctuate, provider networks
and drug formularies change, employer
and employee contributions and cost-shar-
ing change, and covered items and services
may vary. Without some ability to make
some adjustments while retaining grand-
father status, the ability of individuals to
maintain their current coverage would be
frustrated, becausemost plans or health
insurance coverage would quickly cease
to be regarded as the same group health
plan or health insurance coverage in ex-
istence on March 23, 2010. At the same
8
The Affordable Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to ERISA and section 9815(a)(1) to the Code to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code,
and make them applicable to group health plans, and health insurance issuersproviding health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The PHS Act sections incorporated
by this reference are sections 2701 through 2728. PHS Act sections 2701 through 2719A are substantially new, though they incorporate some provisionsof prior law. PHS Act sections 2722
through 2728 are sections of prior law renumbered, with some, mostly minor, changes. Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act, as modified by section 10103 of the Affordable Care Act and
section 2301 of the Reconciliation Act, specifies that certain plans or coverage existing as of the date of enactment (that is, grandfathered health plans) are only subject to certain provisions.
9
For individuals who have coverage through an insured group health plans subject to a collective bargaining agreement ratified before March 23, 2010,an individual’s coverage is grandfa-
thered at least until the date on which the last agreement relating to the coverage that was in effect on March 23, 2010, terminates. These collectivelybargained plans may make any permissible
changes to the benefit structure before the agreement terminates and remain grandfathered. After the termination date, grandfather status will be determined by comparing the plan, as it existed
on March 23, 2010 to the changes that the plan made before terminationunder the rules established by these interim final regulations.
July 19, 2010642010–29 I.R.B.

time, allowing unfettered changes while
retaining grandfather status would also
be inconsistent with Congress’s intent to
preserve coverage that was in effect on
March 23, 2010.
Therefore, as further discussed be-
low, these interim final regulations are
designed, among other things, to take
into account reasonable changes routinely
made by plan sponsors or issuers without
the plan or health insurance coverage re-
linquishing its grandfather status so that
individuals can retain the ability to remain
enrolled in the coverage in which they
were enrolled on March 23, 2010. Thus,
for example, these interim final regula-
tions generally permit plan sponsors and
issuers to make voluntary changes to in-
crease benefits, to conform to required
legal changes, and to adopt voluntarily
other consumer protections in the Afford-
able Care Act.
2.Regulatory Alternatives
Section 6(a)(3)(C)(iii) of Executive Or-
der 12866 requires an economically sig-
nificant regulation to include an assess-
ment of the costs and benefits of poten-
tially effective and reasonable alternatives
to the planned regulation, and an explana-
tion of why the planned regulatory action
is preferable to the potential alternatives.
The alternatives considered by the Depart-
ments fall into two general categories: per-
missible changes to cost sharing and ben-
efits. The discussion below addresses the
considered alternatives in each category.
The Departments considered allowing
looser cost-sharing requirements, such as
25 percent plus medical inflation. How-
ever, the data analysis led the Departments
to believe that the cost-sharing windows
provided in these interim final regula-
tions permit enough flexibility to enable a
smooth transition in the group market over
time, and further widening this window
was not necessary and could conflict with
the goal of allowing those who like their
healthcare to keep it.
Another alternative the Departments
considered was an annual allowance for
cost-sharing increases above medical
inflation, as opposed to the one-time al-
lowance of 15 percent above medical
inflation. An annual margin of 15 per-
cent above medical inflation, for example,
would permit plans to increase cost sharing
by medical inflation plus 15 percent every
year. The Departments concluded that
the effect of the one-time allowance (15
percent of the original, date-of-enactment
level plus medical inflation) would dimin-
ish over time insofar as it would represent
a diminishing fraction of the total level of
cost sharing with the cumulative effects
of medical inflation over time. Accord-
ingly, the one-time allowance would better
reflect (i) the potential need of grandfa-
thered health plans to make adjustments
in the near term to reflect the requirement
that they comply with the market reforms
that apply to grandfathered health plans in
the near term as well as (ii) the prospect
that, for many plans and health insurance
coverage, the need to recover the costs of
compliance in other ways will diminish
in the medium term, in part because of
the changes that will become effective in
2014 and in part because of the additional
time plan sponsors and issuers will have
to make gradual adjustments that take into
account the market reforms that are due to
take effect in later years.
The Departments considered establish-
ing an overall prohibition against changes
that, in the aggregate,or cumulatively over
time, render the plan or coverage substan-
tially different than the plan or coverage
that existed on March 23, 2010, or further
delineating other examples of changes that
could cause a plan to relinquish grandfa-
ther status. This kind of “substantially dif-
ferent” standard would have captured sig-
nificant changes not anticipated in the in-
terim final regulation. However, it would
rely on a “facts and circumstances” anal-
ysis in defining “substantially different”
or “significant changes,” which would be
less transparent and result in greater un-
certainty about the status of a health plan.
That, in turn, could hinder plan sponsor or
issuer decisions as well as enrollee under-
standing of what protections apply to their
coverage.
An actuarial equivalency standard was
another considered option. Such a stan-
dard would allow a plan or health insur-
ance coverage to retain status as a grandfa-
thered health plan if the actuarial value of
the coverage remains in approximately the
same range as it was on March 23, 2010.
However, under such a standard, a plan
could make fundamental changes to the
benefit design, potentially conflicting with
the goal of allowing those who like their
healthcare to keep it, and still retain grand-
father status. Moreover, the complexity in-
volved in defining and determining actuar-
ial value for these purposes, the likelihood
of varying methodologies for determining
such value unless the Departments pro-
mulgated very detailed prescriptive rules,
and the costs of administering and ensur-
ing compliance with such rules led the De-
partments to reject that approach.
Another alternative was a requirement
that employers continue to contribute the
same dollar amount they were contributing
for the period including March 23, 2010,
plus an inflation component. However,
the Departments were concerned that this
approach would not provide enough flex-
ibility to accommodate the year-to-year
volatility in premiums that can result from
changes in some plans’ covered popula-
tions or other factors.
The Departments also considered
whether a change in third party administra-
tor by a self-insured plan should cause the
plan to relinquish grandfather status. The
Departments decided that such a change
would not necessarily cause the plan to
be so different from the plan in effect on
March 23, 2010 that it should be required
to relinquish grandfather status.
After careful consideration, the De-
partments opted against rules that would
require a plan sponsor or issuer to re-
linquish its grandfather status if only
relatively small changes are made to the
plan. The Departments concluded that
plan sponsors and issuers of grandfathered
health plans should be permitted to take
steps within the boundaries of the grandfa-
ther definition to control costs, including
limited increases in cost-sharing and other
plan changes not prohibited by these in-
terim final regulations. As noted earlier,
deciding to relinquish grandfather status
is a one-way sorting process: after some
period of time, more plans will relinquish
their grandfather status. These interim
final regulations will likely influence plan
sponsors’ decisions to relinquish grandfa-
ther status.
3.Discussion of Regulatory Provisions
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
these interim final regulations provide that
a group health plan or health insurance
coverage no longer will be considered a
2010–29 I.R.B.65July 19, 2010

grandfathered health plan if a plan spon-
sor or an issuer:
•Eliminates all or substantially all ben-
efits to diagnose or treat a particular
condition. The elimination of benefits
for any necessary element to diagnose
or treat a condition is considered the
elimination of all or substantially all
benefits to diagnose or treat a particu-
lar condition;
•Increases a percentage cost-sharing re-
quirement (such as coinsurance) above
the level at which it was on March 23,
2010;
•Increases fixed-amount cost-sharing
requirements other than copayments,
such as a $500 deductible or a $2,500
out-of-pocket limit, by a total percent-
age measured from March 23, 2010
that is more than the sum of medical
inflation and 15 percentage points.
10
•Increases copayments by an amount
that exceeds the greater of: a total
percentage measured from March 23,
2010 that is more than the sum of medi-
cal inflation plus 15 percentage points,
or $5 increased by medical inflation
measured from March 23, 2010;
•For a group health plan or group health
insurance coverage, an employer or
employee organization decreases its
contribution rate by more than five
percentage points below the contribu-
tion rate on March 23, 2010; or
•With respect to annual limits (1) a
group health plan, or group or indi-
vidual health insurance coverage, that,
on March 23, 2010, did not impose an
overall annual or lifetime limit on the
dollar value of all benefits imposes an
overall annual limit on the dollar value
of benefits; (2) a group health plan, or
group or individual health insurance
coverage, that, on March 23, 2010,
imposed an overall lifetime limit on
the dollar value of all benefits but no
overall annual limit on the dollar value
of all benefits adopts an overall annual
limit at a dollar value that is lower than
the dollar value of the lifetime limit on
March 23, 2010; or (3) a group health
plan, or group or individual health in-
surance coverage, that, on March 23,
2010, imposed an overall annual limit
on the dollar value of all benefits de-
creases the dollar value of the annual
limit (regardless of whether the plan
or health insurance coverage also im-
poses an overall lifetime limit on the
dollar value of all benefits).
Table 1, in section II.D of this preamble,
lists the relevant Affordable Care Act pro-
visions that apply to grandfathered health
plans.
In accordance with OMB Circular
A–4,
11
Table 2 below depicts an account-
ing statement showing the Departments’
assessment of the benefits, costs, and
transfers associated with this regulatory
action. In accordance with Executive Or-
der 12866, the Departments believe that
the benefits of this regulatory action jus-
tify the costs.
TABLE 2.—Accounting Table
Benefits
Qualitative:These interim final regulations provide plans with guidance about the requirements for retaining grandfather status.
Non-grandfathered plans are required to offer coverage with minimum benefit standards and patient protections as required by
the Affordable Care Act, while grandfathered plans are required only to comply with certain provisions. The existence of
grandfathered health plans will provide individuals with the benefits of plan continuity, which may have a high value to some. In
addition, grandfathering could potentially slow the rate of premium growth, depending on the extent to which their current plan
does not include the benefits and protections of the new law. It could also provide incentives to employers to continue coverage,
potentially reducing new Medicaid enrollment and spending and lowering the number of uninsured individuals. These interim
final regulations also provide greater certainty for plans and issuers about what changes they can make without affecting their
grandfather status. As compared with alternative approaches, these regulations provide significant economic and noneconomic
benefits to both issuers and beneficiaries, though these benefits cannot be quantified at this time.
Costs
Low-end
Estimate
Mid-range
Estimate
High-end
Estimate
Year
Dollar
Discount
Rate
Period
Covered
Annualized22.0
25.6
27.920107%2011–2013
Monetized
($millions/year)
21.224.726.920103%2011–2013
Monetized costs are due to a requirement to notify participants and beneficiaries of a plan’s grandfather status and maintain plan
documents to verify compliance with these interim final regulation’s requirements to retain grandfather status.
Qualita
tive:Limitations on cost-sharing increases imposed by these interim final regulations could result in the cost of some
grandfa
thered health plans increasing more (or decreasing less) than they otherwise would. This increased cost may encourage
some spo
nsors and issuers to replace their grandfathered health plans with new, non-grandfathered ones. Market segmentation
(advers
e selection) due to the decision of higher risk plans to relinquish grandfathering could cause premiums in the exchanges to
be high
er than they would have been absent grandfathering.
10
Medical inflation is defined in these interim regulations byreference to the overall medical care component of the CPI.
11
Available athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.
July 19, 2010662010–29 I.R.B.

Transfers
Qualitative:Limits on the changes to cost-sharing in grandfathered plans and the elimination of cost-sharing for some services in
non-grandfathered plans, leads to transfers of wealth from premium payers overall toindividuals using covered services. Once
pre-existing conditions are fully prohibited and other insurance reforms take effect, the extent to which individuals are enrolled in
grandfathered plans could affect adverse selection, as higher riskplans relinquish grandfather status to gain new protections while
lower risk grandfathered plans retain theirgrandfather status. This could result in a transfer of wealth from non-grandfathered
plans to grandfathered health plans.
4.Discussion of Economic Impacts of
Retaining or Relinquishing Grandfather
Status
The economic effects of these interim
final regulations will depend on decisions
by plan sponsors and issuers, as well as
by those covered under these plans and
health insurance coverage. The collective
decisions of plan sponsors and issuers over
time can be viewed as a one-way sort-
ing process in which these parties decide
whether, and when, to relinquish status as
a grandfathered health plan.
Plan sponsors and issuers can decide to:
1. Continue offering the plan or cover-
age in effect on March 23, 2010 with
limited changes, and thereby retain
grandfather status;
2. Significantly change the terms of the
plan or coverage and comply with
Affordable Care Act provisions from
which grandfathered health plans are
excepted; or
3. In the case of a plan sponsor, cease to
offer any plan.
For a plan sponsor or issuer, the po-
tential economic impact of the application
of the provisions in the Affordable Care
Act may be one consideration in making
its decisions. To determine the value of
retaining the health plan’s grandfather
status, each plan sponsor or issuer must
determine whether the rules applicable to
grandfathered health plans are more or
less favorable than the rules applicable
to non-grandfathered health plans. This
determination will depend on such factors
as the respective prices of grandfathered
and non-grandfathered health plans, as
well as on the preferences of grandfa-
thered health plans’ covered populations
and their willingness to pay for benefits
and patient protections available under
non-grandfathered health plans. In mak-
ing its decisions about grandfather status,
a plan sponsor or issuer is also likely to
consider the market segment (because dif-
ferent rules apply to the large and small
group market segments), and the utiliza-
tion pattern of its covered population.
In deciding whether to change a plan’s
benefits or cost sharing, a plan sponsor or
issuer will examine its short-run business
requirements. These requirements are
regularly altered by, among other things,
rising costs that result from factors such as
technological changes, changes in risk sta-
tus of the enrolled population, and changes
in utilization and provider prices. As
shown below, changes in benefits and cost
sharing are typical in insurance markets.
Decisions about the extent of changes will
determine whether a plan retains its grand-
father status. Ultimately, these decisions
will involve a comparison by the plan
sponsor or issuer of the long run value of
grandfather status to the short-run need of
that plan sponsor or issuer to adjust plan
structure in order to control premium costs
or achieve other business objectives.
Decisionsbyplansponsorsandissuers
may be significantly affected by the pref-
erences and behavior of the enrollees, es-
pecially a tendency among many towards
inertia and resistance to change. There
is limited research that has directly exam-
ined what drives this tendency — whether
individuals remain with health plans be-
cause of simple inertia and procrastina-
tion, a lack of relevant information, or be-
cause they want to avoid risk associated
with switching to new plans. One study
that examined the extent to which pre-
mium changes influenced plan switching
determined that younger low-risk employ-
ees were the most price-sensitive to pre-
mium changes; older, high-risk employees
were the least price-sensitive. This find-
ing suggests that, in particular, individu-
als with substantial health needs may be
more apt to remain with a plan because
of inertia as such or uncertainties associ-
ated with plan switching rather than qual-
ity per se — a phenomenon some behav-
ioral economists have called “status quo
bias,”
12
which can be found when people
stick with the status quo even though a
change would have higher expected value.
Even when an enrollee could reap an
economic or other advantage from chang-
ing plans, that enrollee may not make the
change because of inertia, a lack of rel-
evant information, or because of the cost
and effort involved in examining new op-
tions and uncertainty about the alterna-
tives. Consistent with well-known find-
ings in behavioral economics, studies of
private insurance demonstrate the substan-
tial effect of inertia in the behavior of the
insured. One survey found that approxi-
mately 83 percent of privately insured in-
dividuals stuck with their plans in the year
prior to the survey.
13
Among those who
did change plans, well over half sought the
same type of plan they had before. Those
whoswitchedplansalsotendedtodoso
for reasons other than preferring their new
plans. For example, many switched be-
cause they changed jobs or their employer
changed insurance offerings, compelling
them to switch.
Medicare beneficiaries display similar
plan loyalties. On average, only seven per-
cent of the 17 million seniors on Medicare
drug plans switch plans each year, accord-
ing to the Centers for Medicare and Med-
icaid Services.
14
Researchers have found
this comparatively low rate of switching
is maintained whether or not those insured
have higher quality information about plan
choices, and that switching has little effect
12
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer06/buchmueller.html “Consumer Demand for Health Insurance” The National Bureau of Economic Research (Buchmueller, 2006)
13
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/19/3/158.pdf“Health Plan Switching: Choice Or Circumstance?” (Cunnigham and Kohn, 2000).
14
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/December/01/Medicare-Drug-Plan.aspx “Seniors Often Reluctant To Switch Medicare Drug Plans” (2009, Kaiser Health News/Washington
Post).
2010–29 I.R.B.67July 19, 2010

on the satisfaction of the insured with their
health plans.
15
The incentives to change are different
for people insured in the individual market
than they are for those covered by group
health plans or group health insurance cov-
erage. The median length of coverage for
people entering the individual market is
eight months.
16
In part, this “churn” stems
from the individual market’s function as
a stopping place for people between jobs
with employer-sponsored or other types of
health insurance, but in part, the churn is
due to the behavior of issuers. Evidence
suggests that issuers often make policy
changes such as raising deductibles as a
means of attracting new, healthy enrollees
who have few medical costs and so are
little-concerned about such deductibles.
There is also evidence that issuers use such
changes to sort out high-cost enrollees
from low-cost ones.
17
Decisions about the value of retaining
or relinquishing status as a grandfathered
health plan are complex, and the wide ar-
ray of factors affecting issuers, plan spon-
sors, and enrollees poses difficult chal-
lenges for the Departments as they try to
estimate how large the presence of grand-
fathered health plans will be in the fu-
ture and what the economic effects of their
presence will be. As one example, these
interim final regulations limit the extent to
which plan sponsors and issuers can in-
crease cost sharing and still remain grand-
fathered. The increases that are allowed
provide plans and issuers with substan-
tial flexibility in attempting to control ex-
penditure increases. However, there are
likely to be some plans and issuers that
would, in the absence of these regulations,
choose to make even larger increases in
cost sharing than are specified here. Such
plans will need to decide whether the ben-
efits of maintaining grandfather status out-
weigh those expected from increasing cost
sharing above the levels permitted in the
interim final regulations.
A similar analysis applies to the pro-
vision that an employer’s or employee
organization’s share of the total premium
of a group health plan cannot be reduced
by more than 5 percentage points from the
share it was paying on March 23, 2010
without that plan or health insurance cov-
erage relinquishing its grandfather status.
Employers and employee organizations
sponsoring group health plans or health
insurance coverage may be faced with
economic circumstances that would lead
them to reduce their premium contribu-
tions. But reductions of greater than 5
percentage points would cause them to
relinquish the grandfather status of their
plans. These plan sponsors must decide
whether the benefit of such premium
reductions outweigh those of retaining
grandfather status.
Market dynamics affecting these deci-
sions change in 2014, when the Afford-
able Care Act limits variation in premium
rates for individual and small group poli-
cies. Small groups for this purpose in-
clude employers with up to 100 employees
(States may limit this threshold to 50 em-
ployees until 2016). The Affordable Care
Act rating rules will not apply to grand-
fathered health plans, but such plans will
remain subject to State rating rules, which
vary widely and typically apply to employ-
ers with up to 50 employees. Based on the
current State rating rules, it is likely that,
in many States, no rating rules will apply
to group health insurance policies that are
grandfathered health plans covering em-
ployers with 51 to 100 employees.
18
The interaction of the Affordable Care
Act and State rating rules implies that,
beginning in 2014, premiums can vary
more widely for grandfathered plans than
for non-grandfathered plans for employers
with up to 100 employees in many States.
This could encourage both plan spon-
sors and issuers to continue grandfathered
health plans that cover lower-risk groups,
because these groups will be isolated from
the larger, higher-risk, non-grandfathered
risk pool. On the other hand, this scenario
likely will encourage plan sponsors and
issuers that cover higher-risk groups to
end grandfathered health plans, because
the group would be folded into the larger,
lower-risk non-grandfathered pool. De-
pending on the size of the grandfathered
health plan market, such adverse selec-
tion by grandfathered health plans against
non-grandfathered plans could cause pre-
miums in the exchanges to be higher than
they would have been absent grandfa-
thering. To accommodate these changes
in market dynamics in 2014, the Depart-
ments have structured a cost-sharing rule
whose parameters enable greater flexibil-
ity in early years and less over time. It is
likely that few plans will delay for many
years before making changes that exceed
medical inflation. This is because the
cumulative increase in copayments from
March23,2010iscomparedtoamaxi-
mum percentage increase that includes a
fixed amount — 15 percentage points —
that does not increase annually with any
type of inflator. This should help mitigate
adverse selection and require plans and
issuers that seek to maintain grandfather
status to find ways other than increased
copayments to limit cost growth. As dis-
cussed in the preamble, the Departments
are also soliciting comments to make any
adjustments needed for the final rule prior
to 2014. Therefore it is premature to
estimate the economic effects described
above in 2014 and beyond. In the fol-
lowing section, the Departments provide
a range of estimates of how issuers and
sponsors might respond to these interim
final regulations, with the caveat that
there is substantialuncertainty about ac-
tual outcomes, especially considering that
available data are historical and so do not
account for behavioral changes in plans
and the insured as a result of enactment of
theAffordableCareAct.
5.Estimates of Number of Plans and
Employees Affected
The Affordable Care Act applies to
group health plans and health insurance is-
suers in the group and individual markets.
The large and small group markets will be
discussed first, followed by a discussion
of impacts on the individual market. The
Departments have defined a large group
health plan as a plan at an employer with
100 or more workers and a small group
plan as a plan at an employer with less than
15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16704882“The effect of quality information on consumer health plan switching: evidence from the Buyers Health Care Action Group.” (Abraham,
Feldman, Carlin, and Christianson, 2006)
16
Erika C. Ziller, Andrew F. Coburn, Timothy D. McBride, and CourtneyAndrews. Patterns of Individual Health Insurance Coverage, 1996–2000.Health AffairsNov/Dec 2004: 210–221.
17
Melinda Beeuwkes Bustin, M. Susan Marquis, and Jill M. Yegian. The Role of the Individual Health Insurance Market and Prospects for Change.Health Affairs2004; 23(6): 79–90.
18
Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts (2010),http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=351&cat=7.
July 19, 2010682010–29 I.R.B.

100 workers. Using data from the 2008
Medical Expenditure Survey — Insurance
Component, the Departments estimated
that there are approximately 72,000 large
ERISA-covered health plans and 2.8 mil-
lion small group health plans with an
estimated 97.0 million participants and
beneficiaries
19
in large group plans and
40.9 million participants and beneficiaries
in small group plans. The Departments es-
timate that there are 126,000 governmental
plans
20
with 36.1 million participants in
large plans and 2.3 million participants in
small plans. The Departments estimate
there are 16.7 million individuals under
age 65 covered by individually purchased
policies.
a.Methodology for analyzing plan
changes over time in the group market
For the large and small group markets,
the Departments analyzed three years of
Kaiser-HRET data to assess the changes
that plans made between plan years 2007
to 2008 and 2008 to 2009. Specifically,
the Departments examined changes made
to deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums,
copayments, coinsurance, and the em-
ployer’s share of the premium or cost
of coverage. The Departments also esti-
mated the number of fully-insured plans
that changed issuers.
21
The distribution of
changes made within the two time periods
were nearly identical and ultimately the
2008–2009 changes were used as a basis
for the analyses.
As discussed previously, plans will
need to make decisions that balance the
value they (and their enrollees) place
on maintaining grandfather status with
the need to meet short run objectives by
changing plan features including the vari-
ous cost sharing requirements that are the
subject of this rule. The 2008–2009 data
reflect changes in plan benefit design that
were made under very different market
conditions and expectations than will exist
in 2011 and beyond. Therefore, there is
a significant degree of uncertainty asso-
ciated with using the 2008–2009 data to
project the number of plans whose grand-
father status may be affected in the next
few years. Because the level of uncertainty
becomes substantially greater when trying
to use this data to predict outcomes once
the full range of reforms takes effect in
2014 and the exchanges begin operating,
substantially changing market dynamics
the Departments restrict our estimates to
the 2011–2013 period and use the existing
data and a range of assumptions to esti-
mate possible outcomes based on a range
of assumptions concerning how plans’
behavior regarding cost sharing changes
may change relative to what is reflected in
the 2008–2009 data.
Deriving projections of the number of
plans that could retain grandfather status
under the requirements of these interim fi-
nal regulations required several steps:
•Using Kaiser/HRET data for
2008–2009, estimates were generated
of the number of plans in the large
and small group markets that made
changes in employer premium share
or any of the cost-sharing parameters
that were larger than permitted for a
plan to retain grandfather status under
these interim final regulations;
•In order to account for a range of
uncertainty with regard to changes
in plan behavior toward cost sharing
changes, the Departments assumed
that many plans will want to main-
tain grandfather status and will look
for ways to achieve short run cost
control and still maintain that status.
One plausible assumption is that plans
would look to a broader range of cost
sharing strategies in order to achieve
cost containment and other objectives
than they had in the past. In order to
examine this possibility, the Depart-
ments carefully analyzed those plans
that would have relinquished grand-
father status based on a change they
made from 2008–2009. The Depart-
ments then estimated the proportion of
these plans that could have achieved
similar cost control by using one or
more other cost-sharing changes in
addition to the one they made in a
manner that would not have exceeded
the limits set by these interim final
regulations for qualifying as a grand-
fathered health plan. For example,
if a plan was estimated to relinquish
grandfather status because it increased
its deductible by more than the allowed
15 percentage points plus medical
inflation, the Departments analyze
whether the plan could have achieved
the same cost control objectives with
a smaller change in deductible, but
larger changes (within the limits set
forth in these interim final regulations)
in copayments, out-of-pocket maxi-
mums, and employer contributions to
the premium or cost of coverage.
•Finally, the Departments examined
the impact of alternative assumptions
about sponsor behavior. For example,
it is possible that some sponsors who
made changes from 2008–2009 in plan
parameters that were so large that they
would have relinquished their grand-
father status would not make similar
changes in 2011–2013. It is also pos-
sible that even though a sponsor could
make an equivalent change that con-
forms to the rules established in these
interim final regulations to maintain
grandfather status, it would decide not
to.
The estimates in this example rely
on several other assumptions. Among
them: (1) the annual proportion of plans
relinquishing grandfather status is the
same throughout the period; (2) all group
health plans existing at the beginning of
2010 qualify for grandfather status; (3) all
changes during 2010 occur after March
23, 2010; (4) annual medical inflation is
4 percent (based on the average annual
change in the medical CPI between 2000
and 2009); and (5) firms for which the
Kaiser-HRET survey has data for both
2008 and 2009 are representative of all
19
All participant counts and the estimates of individualpolicies are from the 2009 Current Population Survey (CPS).
20
Estimate is from the 2007 Census of Government.
21
Under the Affordable Care Act and these interim final regulations, if a planthat is not a collectively bargained plan changes issuers after March 23, 2010, it is no longer a grandfathered
health plan.
2010–29 I.R.B.69July 19, 2010

firms.
22
The assumption used for estimat-
ing the effects of the limits on copayment
increases does not take into account the
greater flexibility in the near term than
in the long term; the estimated increase
in firms losing their grandfather status
over time reflects cumulative effects of
a constant policy. To the extent that the
data reflect plans that are more likely
to make frequent changes in cost shar-
ing, the assumption that a constant share
of plans relinquishing grandfather status
throughout the period may underestimate
the number of plans that will retain grand-
father status through 2013. In addition,
data on substantial benefit changes were
not available and thus not included in the
analysis. The survey data is limited, in
that it covers only one year of changes in
healthcare plans. The Departments’ anal-
ysis employed data only on PPO plans,
the predominant type of plan. In addition,
the difficulties of forecasting behavior in
response to this rule create uncertainties
for quantitative evaluation. However, the
analysis presented here is illustrative of
the rule’s goal of balancing flexibility with
maintaining current coverage.
b.Impacts on the group market resulting
from changes from 2008 to 2009
The Departments first estimated the
percentage of plans that had a percent
change in the dollar value of deductibles,
copayments, or out-of-pocket maximums
that exceeded 19 percent (the sum of med-
ical inflation (assumed in these analyses
to be four percent) plus 15 percentage
points measured from March 23, 2010.
Plans making copayment changes of five
dollars or less were considered to have
satisfied the copayment limit, even if that
change exceeded 19 percent.
23
The De-
partments also estimated the number of
plans for whom the percentage of total
premium paid by the employer declined
by more than 5 percentage points. For
fully-insured plans only, estimates were
made of the proportion that switched to a
different issuer.
24
This estimate does not
take into account collectively bargained
plans, which can change issuers during the
period of the collective bargaining agree-
ment without a loss of grandfather status,
because the Departments could not quan-
tify this category of plans. Accordingly,
this estimate represents an upper bound.
Using the Kaiser/HRET data, the De-
partments estimated that 55 percent of
small employers and 36 percent of large
employers made at least one change in
cost-sharing parameters above the thresh-
olds provided in these interim final reg-
ulations. Similarly, 33 percent of small
employers and 21 percent of large em-
ployers decreased the employer’s share
of premium by more than five percentage
points. In total, approximately 66 percent
of small employers and 48 percent of large
employers made a change in either cost
sharing or premium contribution during
2009 that would require them to relinquish
grandfather status if the same change were
made in 2011.
25
The changes made by employers from
2008 to 2009 were possibly made in an-
ticipation of the recession. As discussed
previously, analysis of changes from 2007
to 2008 suggests that the 2007–08 changes
were not much different from the 2008–09
changes. Nevertheless, as a result of im-
provements in economic conditions, it
makes sense to think that the pressure on
employers to reduce their contributions to
health insurance will be smaller in 2011
than they were in 2009, and that the De-
partment’s analysis of changes in 2009
may overestimate the changes that should
be expected in 2011.
26
As discussed previously, it is highly
unlikely that plans would continue to ex-
hibit the same behavior in 2011 to 2013
as in 2008 to 2009. In order to guide
the choice of behavioral assumptions, the
Departments conducted further analyses
of the 2008–2009 data. Many employ-
ers who made changes between 2008 and
2009 that would have caused them to re-
linquish grandfather status did so based on
exceeding one of the cost-sharing limits.
Assuming that the sponsor’s major objec-
tive in implementing these changes was to
restrain employer costs or overall premi-
ums, the Departments examined whether
the sponsor could have achieved the same
net effect on employer cost or premiums
by spreading cost sharing over two or
more changes without exceeding the limits
on any of these changes. For example,
an employer that increased its deductible
by 30 percent would have relinquished
grandfather status. However, it is possible
that the employer could have achieved the
same cost control objectives by limiting
the deductible increase to 19 percent, and,
also increasing the out-of-pocket maxi-
mum or copayments, or decreasing the
employer share of the premium.
The Departments estimate that ap-
proximately two-thirds of the employers
that made changes in 2009 that would
have exceeded the threshold implemented
by this rule could have achieved the
same cost-control objective and remained
grandfathered by making changes in other
cost-sharing parameters or in the employer
share of the premium. Only 24 percent of
small employers and 16 percent of large
employers could not have reconfigured
the cost-sharing parameters or employer
contributions in such a manner that would
have allowed them to stay grandfathered.
If benefit changes that are allowed within
the grandfathered health plan definition
were also taken into account (not possible
with available data), these percentages
would be even lower.
22
The analysis is limited to firms that responded to the Kaiser/HRET survey in both 2008 and 2009. Large firms are overrepresented in the analytic sample. New firms and firms that went
o
ut of business in 2008 or 2009 are underrepresented. The Departments present results separately for large firms and small firms, and weight the results to the number of employees in each
firm-size category. Results are presented for PPO plans. The Kaiser/HRETsurvey gathers information about the PPO with the most enrollment in each year. If enrollment at a given employer
shifted from one PPO to a different PPO between 2008 and 2009, then the PPO with the most enrollment in 2009 may be different than the PPO with the most enrollment in 2008. To the
extent this occurred, the estimates presented here may overestimate the fraction of plans that will relinquish grandfather status. However, given the behavioral assumptions of the analysis and
the need to present a range of results, the Departments believe that such overestimation will not have a noticeable effect on estimates presented here.
23
The regulation allows plans to increase fixed-amount copayments by an amount that does not exceed $5 increased by medical inflation. In this analysis, the Departments used a threshold
of $5, rather than the threshold of approximately $5.20 that would be allowedby these interim final regulations. There would have been no difference in the results if the Departments had
used $5.20 rather than $5 as the threshold.
24
In contrast, for self-insured plans, a change in third party administratorin and of itself does not cause a group health plan to cease to be a grandfathered health plan, provided changes do
not exceed the limits of paragraph (g)(1) of these interim final regulations.
25
Some employers made changes which exceeded at least one cost-sharing threshold and decreased the employer’s share of contribution by more than five percent.
26
Employers who offer plans on a calendar year basis generally make decisions about health plan offerings during the preceding summer. Thus, decisionsfor calendar 2009 were generally
made during the summer of 2008. At that time, the depth of the coming recession was not yet clear to most observers.
July 19, 2010702010–29 I.R.B.

For fully insured group health plans, an-
other change that would require a plan to
relinquish grandfather status is a change in
issuer. Between 2008 and 2009, 15 per-
cent of small employers and four percent
of large employers changed insurance car-
riers.
27
However, it is likely that the in-
centive to stay grandfathered would lead
some of these employers to continue with
the same issuer, making the actual share of
firms relinquishing grandfather status as a
result of an issuer change lower than the
percentage that switched in 2009. There
appears to be no empirical evidence to pro-
vide guidance on the proportion of em-
ployers that would choose to remain with
their issuer rather than relinquish grandfa-
ther status. That being so, an assumption
was made that 50 percent of employers that
changed issuers in 2009 would not have
made a similar change in 2011 in order to
retain grandfather status. It is likely that
fewer employers will elect to change car-
riers than in recent years given that some
will prefer to retain grandfather status. But
it is also likely that many employers will
prefer to switch carriers given a change in
the issuer’s network or other factors. Be-
cause there is little empirical evidence re-
garding the fraction of firms that would
elect to switch in response to the change
in regulations, we take the midpoint of the
plausible range of no switching carriers at
one extreme and all switching carriers at
the other extreme. We therefore assume
that 50 percent of employers that changed
issuers in 2009 would not make a similar
change in 2011 to retain grandfather sta-
tus.
Combining the estimates of the percent-
age of employers thatwould relinquish
grandfather status because they chose to
make cost-sharing, benefit or employer
contribution changes beyond the permit-
ted parameters with the estimates of the
percentage that would relinquish grand-
father status because they change issuers,
the Departments estimate that approx-
imately 31 percent of small employers
and 18 percent of large employers would
make changes that would require them to
relinquish grandfather status in 2011. The
Departments use these estimates as our
mid-range scenario.
c.Sensitivity analysis: assuming that
employers will be willing to absorb a
premium increase in order to remain
grandfathered
To the extent that a large number of
plans placed a high value on remaining
grandfathered, it is reasonable to assume
that some would consider other measures
to maintain that status. In addition to the
adjustments that employers could rela-
tively easily make by simply adjusting the
full set of cost-sharing parameters rather
than focusing changes on a single param-
eter, the Departments expect that further
behavioral changes in response to the in-
centives created by the Affordable Care
Act and these interim final regulations is
possible. For instance, plans could alter
other benefits or could decide to accept
a slight increase in plan premium or in
premium contribution. All of these op-
tions would further lower the percentage
of firms that would relinquish grandfather
status. There is substantial uncertainty,
however, about how many firms would
utilize these other avenues.
To examine the impact of this type of
behavior on the estimates on the number
of plans that would not maintain grand-
father status, the Departments examined
the magnitude of additional premium in-
creases plans wouldneed to implement
if they were to modify their cost-sharing
changes to stay within the allowable lim-
its. Among the 24 percent of small firms
that would have relinquished grandfather
status based on the changes they made in
2009, 31 percent would have needed to in-
crease premiums by 3 percent or less in
order to maintain grandfather status. The
analogous statistic for the 16 percent of
large firms that would have relinquished
grandfather status is 41 percent. It is rea-
sonable to think that employers that are
facing only a relatively small premium in-
crease might choose to remain grandfa-
thered.
Using these estimates, if employers
value grandfathering enough that they are
willing to allow premiums to increase
by three percent more than their other-
wise intended level (or can make changes
to benefits other than cost-sharing that
achieve a similar result), then 14 percent
of small employers and 11 percent of large
employers would relinquish grandfather
status if they made the same changes in
2011 as they had in 2009. Adding in the
employers who would relinquish grand-
father status because they change issuers,
the Departments’ lower bound estimate
is that approximately 21 percent of small
employers and 13 percentof large employ-
ers will relinquish grandfather status in
2011.
d.Sensitivity analysis: incomplete
flexibility to substitute one cost-sharing
mechanism for another
Although economic conditions may
cause more plans to remain grandfathered
in 2011 than might be expected from
analysis of the 2009 data, there are other
factors that may cause the Departments’
estimates of the fraction of plans retaining
grandfather status to be overestimates of
the fraction that will retain grandfather
status. The estimates are based on the
assumption that all plans that could ac-
commodate the 2009 change they made
in a single cost-sharing parameter by
spreading out those changes over mul-
tiple parameters would actually do so.
However, some plans and sponsors may
be concerned about the labor relations
consequences of reducing the employer
contribution to premium. For example, if a
plan increases its out-of-pocket maximum
from $3,000 to $5,000 in 2009, it could
choose to remain grandfathered by limit-
ing the out-of-pocket maximum to $3,570,
reducing the employer contribution and
increasing the employee contribution to
premium. It is not clear, however, that
all plan sponsors would do so — some
may see the costs in negative employee
relations as larger than the benefits from
remaining grandfathered. Moreover, be-
cause some plans may already nearly
comply with all provisions of the Afford-
able Care Act, or because enrollees are
of average to less favorable health status,
some employers may place less value on
retaining grandfather status.
With this in mind, the Departments
replicated the analysis, but assumed that
one-half of the employers who made a
change in cost-sharing parameter that
could not be accommodated without re-
ducing the employer contribution will be
27
Among the 76 percent of small employers and 84 percent of large employers who could have accommodated thecost-sharing changes they desired to make within the parameters of these
interim final regulations, 13 percent of the small employersand three percent of the large employers changed issuers.
2010–29 I.R.B.71July 19, 2010

unwilling to reduce the employer contri-
bution as a share of premium. Under this
assumption, the 24 percent and 16 percent
estimates of the proportion of employers
relinquishing grandfather status increases
to approximately 37 percent and 28 per-
cent among small and large employers,
respectively. Adding in the number of
employers that it is estimated will change
issuers, the Departments’ high-end esti-
mate for the proportion that will relinquish
grandfather status in 2011 is approxi-
mately 42 percent for small employers and
29 percent for large employers.
e.Estimates for 2011–2013
Estimates are provided above for the
percentage of employers that will retain
grandfather status in 2011. These es-
timates are extended through 2013 by
assuming that the identical percentage of
plan sponsors will relinquish grandfather-
ing in each year. Again, to the extent that
the 2008–2009 data reflect plans that are
more likely to make frequent changes in
cost sharing, this assumption will overes-
timate the number of plans relinquishing
grandfather status in 2012 and 2013.
Under this assumption, the Depart-
ments’ mid-range estimate is that 66
percent of small employer plans and 45
percent of large employer plans will relin-
quish their grandfather status by the end
of 2013. The low-end estimates are for
49 percent and 34 percent of small and
large employer plans, respectively, to have
relinquished grandfather status, and the
high-end estimates are 80 percent and 64
percent, respectively.
TABLE 3.—Estimates of the Cumulative Percentage of Employer Plans Relinquishing Their Grandfathered Status, 2011–2013
201120122013
Low-end Estimate
Small Employer Plans20%36%49%
Large Employer Plans13%24%34%
All Employer Plans15%28%39%
Mid-range Estimate
Small Employer Plans30%
51%
66%
Large Employer Plans18%33%
45%
All Employer Plans22%38%51%
High-end Estimate
Small Employer Plans42%66%80%
Large Employer Plans29%
50%
64%
All Employer Plans33%55%69%
Notes: Represents full-time employees. Small Employers=3 to 99 employees; Large Employers=100+ employees. All three
scenarios assume that two percent of all large employer plans and six percent of small employer plans would relinquish
grandfathered status due to a change in issuer. Estimates are based on enrollment in PPOs.
Source: Kaiser/RHET Employer Survey, 2008–2009
f.Impacts on the Individual Market
The market for individual insurance is
significantly different than that for group
coverage. This affects estimates of the pro-
portion of plans that will remain grandfa-
thered until 2014. As mentioned previ-
ously, the individual market is a residual
market for those who need insurance but
do not have group coverage available and
do not qualify for public coverage. For
many, the market is transitional, provid-
ing a bridge between other types of cov-
erage. One study found a high percent-
age of individual insurance policies began
and ended with employer-sponsored cov-
erage.
28
More importantly, coverage on
particular policies tends to be for short pe-
riods of time. Reliable data are scant, but
a variety of studies indicate that between
40 percent and 67 percent of policies are
in effect for less than one year.
29
Although
data on changes in benefit packages com-
parable to that for the group market is
not readily available, the high turnover
rates described here would dominate ben-
efit changes as the chief source of changes
in grandfather status.
While a substantial fraction of individ-
ual policies are in force for less than one
year, a small group of individuals main-
tain their policies over longer time periods.
One study found that 17 percent of indi-
viduals maintained their policies for more
than two years,
30
while another found that
nearly 30 percent maintained policies for
more than three years.
31
Using these turnover estimates, a rea-
sonable range for the percentage of indi-
vidual policies that would terminate, and
therefore relinquish their grandfather sta-
tus, is 40 percent to 67 percent. These es-
timates assume that the policies that termi-
nate are replaced by new individual poli-
cies, and that these new policies are not, by
definition, grandfathered. In addition, the
coverage that some individuals maintain
for long periods might lose its grandfather
28
Adele M. Kirk. The Individual Insurance Market: A Building Block for Health Care Reform?Health Care Financing Organization Research Synthesis. May 2008.
29
Ibid.
30
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/6/210#R14“Patterns of Individual Health Insurance Coverage”Health Affairs(Ziller et al, 2004).
31
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.25.w226v1/DC1“Consumer Decision Making in the Individual Health Insurance Market”Health Affairs(Marquis et al, 2006).
July 19, 2010722010–29 I.R.B.

status because the cost-sharing parameters
in policies change by more than the limits
specified in these interim final regulations.
The frequency of this outcome cannot be
gauged due to lack of data, but as a result
of it, the Departments estimate that the per-
centage of individual market policies los-
ing grandfather status in a given year ex-
ceeds the 40 percent to 67 percent range
that is estimated based on the fraction of
individual policies that turn over from one
year to the next.
g.Application to extension of dependent
coverage to age 26
One way to assess the impact of these
interim final regulations is to assess
how they interact with other Affordable
Care Act provisions. One such pro-
vision is the requirement that, in plan
years on or after September 23, 2010, but
prior to January 1, 2014, grandfathered
group health plans are required to offer
dependent coverage to a child under
the age of 26 who is not eligible for
employer-sponsored insurance. In the
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for
the regulation that was issued on May 13,
2010 (75 FR 27122), the Departments
estimated that there were 5.3 million
young adults age 19–25 who were
covered by employer-sponsored coverage
(ESI) and whose parents were covered
by employer-sponsored insurance, and
an additional 480,000 young adults
who were uninsured, were offered ESI,
and whose parents were covered by
ESI. In that impact assessment, the
Departments assumed that all parents
with employer-sponsored insurance
would be in grandfathered health plans,
and that none of their 19–25 year old
dependents with their own offer of
employer-sponsored insurance would gain
coverage as a result of that regulation.
As estimated here, approximately 80
percent of the parents with ESI are likely
to be in grandfathered health plans in
2011, leaving approximately 20 percent of
these parents in non-grandfathered health
plans. Young adults under 26 with em-
ployer-sponsored insurance or with an
offer of such coverage whose parents are in
non-grandfathered plans potentially could
enroll in their parents’ coverage. The De-
partments assume that a large percentage
of the young adults who are uninsured
will enroll in their parents’ coverage when
given the opportunity. It is more difficult
to model the choices of young adults with
an offer of employer-sponsored insurance
whose parents also have group cover-
age. One assumes these young adults will
compare the amount that they must pay
for their own employer’s coverage with
the amount that they (or their parents)
would pay if they were covered under
their parents’ policies. Such a decision
will incorporate the type of plan that the
parent has, since if the parent already has a
family plan whose premium does not vary
by number of dependents, the adult child
could switch at no additional cost to the
parents. A very rough estimate therefore
is that approximately 25 percent of young
adults with ESI will switch to their parents’
coverage when their parents’ coverage
is not grandfathered. The Departments
assume that 15 percent of young adults
who are offered ESI but are uninsured and
whose parents have non-grandfathered
health plans will switch to their parents’
plan. This latter estimate roughly cor-
responds to the assumption made in the
low-take up rate scenario in the RIA for
dependent coverage for young adults who
are uninsured.
These assumptions imply that an addi-
tional approximately 414,000 young adults
whose parents have non-grandfathered
ESI will be covered by their parents’ health
coverage in 2011, of whom 14,000 would
have been uninsured, compared with the
dependent coverage regulation impact
analysis that assumed that all existing
plans would have remained grandfathered
and none of these adult children would
have been eligible for coverage under their
parents’ plans. By 2013, an estimated
698,000 additional young adults with ESI
or an offer of ESI will be covered by their
parent’s non-grandfathered health policy,
of which 36,000 would have been unin-
sured.
6.Grandfathered Health Plan Document
Retention and Disclosure Requirements
To maintain grandfathered health plan
status under these interim final regulations,
a plan or issuer must maintain records
that document the plan or policy terms in
connection with the coverage in effect on
March 23, 2010, and any other documents
necessary to verify, explain or clarify is
status as a grandfathered health plan. The
records must be made available for ex-
amination by participants, beneficiaries,
individual policy subscribers, or a State or
Federal agency official.
Plans or health insurance coverage that
intend to be a grandfathered health plan,
also must include a statement, in any plan
materials provided to participants or ben-
eficiaries (in the individual market, pri-
mary subscriber) describing the benefits
provided under the plan or health insur-
ance coverage, and that the plan or cover-
age is intended to be a grandfathered health
plan within the meaning of section 1251 of
theAffordableCareAct. Intheseinterim
final regulations, the Departments provide
a model statement plans and issuers may
use to satisfy the disclosure requirement.
The Department’s estimate that the one
time cost to plans and insurance issuers
of preparing and distributing the grandfa-
thered health plan disclosure is $39.6 mil-
lion in 2011. The one time cost to plans
and insurance issuers for the record reten-
tion requirement is estimated to be $32.2
million in 2011. For a discussion of the
grandfathered health plan document reten-
tion and disclosure requirements, see the
Paperwork Reduction Act section later in
this preamble.
C.Regulatory Flexibility
Act—Department of Labor and
Department of Health and Human
Services
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes
certain requirements with respect to
federal rules that are subject to the notice
and comment requirements of section
553(b) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 551et seq.)
and that are likely to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Under Section 553(b)
of the APA, a general notice of proposed
rulemaking is not required when an
agency, for good cause, finds that
notice and public comment thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. These interim final
regulations are exempt from the APA,
because the Departments made a good
cause finding that a general notice of
proposed rulemaking is not necessary
earlier in this preamble. Therefore, the
RFA does not apply and the Departments
2010–29 I.R.B.73July 19, 2010

are not required to either certify that the
regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities or conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Nevertheless, the Departments care-
fully considered the likely impact of the
regulations on small entities in connection
with their assessment under Executive Or-
der 12866. Consistent with the policy of
the RFA, the Departments encourage the
public to submit comments that suggest
alternative rules that accomplish the stated
purpose of section 1251 of the Afford-
able Care Act and minimize the impact on
small entities.
D.Special Analyses-Department of the
Treasury
Notwithstanding the determinations of
the Department of Labor and Department
of Health and Human Services, for pur-
poses of the Department of the Treasury, it
has been determined that this Treasury de-
cision is not a significant regulatory action
for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not
required. It has alsobeen determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not
apply to these regulations. For the appli-
cability of the RFA, refer to the Special
Analyses section in the preamble to the
cross-referencing notice of proposed rule-
making published elsewhere in this issue
of the Bulletin. Pursuant to section 7805(f)
of the Code, these temporary regulations
have been submitted to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Ad-
ministration for comment on their impact
on small businesses.
E.Paperwork Reduction Act
1.Department of Labor and Department
of Treasury: Affordable Care Act
Grandfathered Plan Disclosure and
Record Retention Requirements
As part of their continuing efforts to
reduce paperwork and respondent burden,
the Departments conduct a preclearance
consultation program to provide the gen-
eral public and federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and continuing collections of information
in accordance with the Paperwork Re-
duction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that
requested data can be provided in the de-
sired format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized, collec-
tion requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed.
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
if a plan or health insurance coverage in-
tends to be a grandfathered health plan,
it must include a statement in any plan
materials provided to participants or ben-
eficiaries (in the individual market, pri-
mary subscriber) describing the benefits
provided under the plan or health insur-
ance coverage, and that the plan or cover-
age is intended to be grandfathered health
plan within the meaning of section 1251 of
the Affordable Care Act (“grandfathered
health plan disclosure”). Model language
has been provided in these interim final
regulations, the use of which will satisfy
this disclosure requirement
To maintain status as a grandfathered
health plan under these interim final reg-
ulations, a plan or issuer must maintain
records documenting the plan or policy
terms in connection with the coverage in
effect on March 23, 2010, and any other
documents necessary to verify, explain, or
clarify its status as a grandfathered health
plan (“recordkeeping requirement”). In
addition, the plan or issuer must make such
records available for examination. Ac-
cordingly, a participant, beneficiary, indi-
vidual policy subscriber, or State or Fed-
eral agency official would be able to in-
spect such documents to verify the status
of the plan or health insurance coverage as
a grandfathered health plan.
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
grandfathered health plans are not required
to comply with certain Affordable Care
Act provisions. These interim regulations
define for plans and issuers the scope of
changes that they can make to their grand-
fathered health plans and policies under
the Affordable Care Act while retaining
their grandfathered health plan status.
The Affordable Care Act grandfathered
health plan disclosure and recordkeeping
requirements are information collection
requests (ICR) subject to the PRA. Cur-
rently, the Departments are soliciting
public comments for 60 days concerning
these disclosures. The Departments have
submitted a copy of these interim final
regulations to OMB in accordance with
44 U.S.C. 3507(d) for review of the in-
formation collections. The Departments
and OMB are particularly interested in
comments that:
•Evaluate whether the collection of in-
formation is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the infor-
mation 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 re-
spond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, me-
chanical, or other technological collec-
tion techniques or other forms of in-
formation technology, for example, by
permitting electronic submission of re-
sponses.
Comments should be sent to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention: Desk Officer for the Employee
Benefits Security Administration either
by fax to (202)395–7285 or by email to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.Acopy
oftheICRmaybeobtainedbycontact-
ing the PRA addressee: G. Christopher
Cosby, Office of Policy and Research,
U.S. Department of Labor, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N–5718,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:
(202) 693–8410; Fax: (202) 219–2745.
These are not toll-free numbers. E-mail:
ebsa.opr@dol.gov. ICRs submitted to
OMB also are available at reginfo.gov
(http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRA-
Main).
a. Grandfathered health plan disclosure
In order to satisfy the interim final
regulations’ grandfathered health plan
disclosure requirement, the Departments
estimate that 2.2 million ERISA-covered
plans will need to notify an estimated
56.3 million policy holders of their plans’
July 19, 2010742010–29 I.R.B.

grandfathered health plan status.
32
The
following estimates, except where noted,
are based on the mid-range estimates of
the percent of plans retaining grandfather
status. Because the interim final regu-
lations provide model language for this
purpose, the Departments estimate that
five minutes of clerical time (with a labor
rate of $26.14/hour) will be required to
incorporate the required language into the
plan document and ten minutes of an hu-
man resource professional’s time (with a
labor rate of $89.12/hour) will be required
to review the modified language.
33
After
plans first satisfy the grandfathered health
plan disclosure requirement in 2011, any
additional burden should bede minimisif
a plan wants to maintain its grandfather
status in future years. The Departments
also expect the cost of removing the notice
from plan documents as plans relinquish
their grandfather status to bede minimis
and therefore is not estimated. Therefore,
the Departments estimate that plans will
incur a one-time hour burden of 538,000
hours with an equivalent cost of $36.6 mil-
lion to meet the disclosure requirement.
The Departments assume that only
printing and material costs are associ-
ated with the disclosure requirement, be-
cause the interim final regulations provide
model language that can be incorporated
into existing plan documents, such as a
summary plan description (SPD). The
Departments estimate that the notice will
require one-half of a page, five cents per
page printing and material cost will be
incurred, and 38 percent of the notices will
be delivered electronically. This results
in a cost burden of $873,000 ($0.05 per
page*1/2 pages per notice * 34.9 million
notices*0.62).
b. Record-Keeping requirement
The Departments assume that most of
the documents required to be retained to
satisfy recordkeeping requirement of these
interim final regulations already are re-
tained by plans for tax purposes, to sat-
isfy ERISA’s record retention and statute
of limitations requirements, and for other
business reasons. Therefore, the Depart-
ments estimate that the recordkeeping bur-
den imposed by this ICR will require five
minutes of a legal professional’s time (with
a rate of $119.03/hour) to determine the
relevant plan documents that must be re-
tained and ten minutes of clerical staff time
(with a labor rate of $26.14/hour) to orga-
nize and file the required documents to en-
sure that they are accessible to participants,
beneficiaries, and Federal and State gov-
ernmental agency officials.
With an estimated 2.2 million grand-
fathered plans in 2011, the Departments
estimate an hour burden of approximately
538,000 hours with equivalent costs of
$30.7 million. The Departments have es-
timated this as a one-time cost incurred in
2011, because after the first year, the De-
partments anticipate that any future costs
will bede minimis.
Overall, for both the grandfathering no-
tice and the recordkeeping requirement,
the Departments expect there to be a total
hour burden of 1.1 million hours and a cost
burden of $291,000.
The Departments note that persons are
not required to respond to, and generally
are not subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with, an ICR unless the ICR has a
valid OMB control number.
These paperwork burden estimates are
summarized as follows:
Type of Review: New Collection
Agencies: Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor; In-
ternal Revenue Service, U.S. Department
of Treasury.
Title: Disclosure and Recordkeeping
Requirements for Grandfathered Health
Plans under the Affordable Care Act.
OMB Number:1210–0140;
1545–2178
Affected Public: Business or other for-
profit; not-for-profit institutions.
Total Respondents: 2,151,000.
Total Responses: 56,347,000.
Frequency of Response: One time
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:
538,000 (Employee Benefits Security Ad-
ministration); 538,000 (Internal Revenue
Service).
Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:
$437,000 (Employee Benefits Security
Administration); $437,000 (Internal Rev-
enue Service).
2.Department of Health and Human
Services: Affordable Care Act
Grandfathered Plan Disclosure and
Record Retention Requirements
As discussed above in the Department
of Labor and Department of the Treasury
PRA section, these interim final regula-
tions contain a record retention and disclo-
sure requirement for grandfathered health
plans. These requirements are information
collection requirements under the PRA.
a. Grandfathered health plan disclosure
In order to satisfy the interim final
regulations’ grandfathered health plan
disclosure requirement, the Department
estimates that 98,000 state and local gov-
ernmental plans will need to notify ap-
proximately 16.2 million policy holders of
their plans’ status as a grandfathered health
plan. The following estimates except
where noted are based on the mid-range
estimates of the percent of plans retaining
grandfather status. An estimated 490 in-
surers providing coverage in the individual
market will need to notify an estimated 4.3
million policy holders of their policies’
status as a grandfathered health plan.
34
Because the interimfinal regulations
provide model language for this pur-
pose, the Department estimates that five
minute of clerical time (with a labor rate
of $26.14/hour) will be required to incor-
porate the required language into the plan
document and ten minutes of a human
resource professional’s time (with a labor
32
The Departments’ estimate of the number of ERISA-covered health plans was obtained from the 2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey’s Insurance component. The estimate of the
number of policy holders was obtained from the 2009 Current Population Survey. The methodology used to estimate the percentage of plans that will retain their grandfathered plans was
discussed above.
33
EBSA estimates of labor rates include wages, other benefits, and overhead based on the National Occupational Employment Survey (May 2008, Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the Em-
ployment Cost Index June 2009, Bureau of Labor Statistics).
34
The Department’s estimate of the number of state and local governmental health plans was obtained from the 2007 Census of Governments. The estimate ofthe number of policy holders in
the individual market were obtained from the 2009 Current Population Survey. The methodology used to estimate the percentage of state and local governmental plans and individual market
policies that will retain their grandfathered health plan status was discussed above.
2010–29 I.R.B.75July 19, 2010

rate of $89.12/hour) will be required to re-
view the modified language.
35
After plans
first satisfy the grandfathered health plan
disclosure requirement in 2011, any ad-
ditional burden should bede minimisif a
plan wants to maintain its grandfather sta-
tus in future years. The Department also
expects the cost of removing the notice
from plan documents as plans relinquish
their grandfather status to bede minimis
and therefore is not estimated. Therefore,
the Department estimates that plans and
insurers will incur a one-time hour burden
of 26,000 hours with an equivalent cost
of $1.8 million to meet the disclosure re-
quirement.
The Department assumes that only
printing and material costs are associated
with the disclosure requirement, because
the interim final regulations provide model
language that can be incorporated into
existing plan documents, such as an SPD.
The Department estimates that the notice
will require one-half of a page, five cents
per page printing and material cost will be
incurred, and 38 percent of the notices will
be delivered electronically. This results
in a cost burden of $318,000 ($0.05 per
page*1/2 pages per notice * 12.7 million
notices*0.62).
b. Record-Keeping requirement
The Department assumes that most
of the documents required to be retained
to satisfy the Affordable Care Act’s
recordkeeping requirement already are
retained by plans for tax purpose, to sat-
isfy ERISA’s record retention and statute
of limitations requirements, and for other
business reasons. Therefore, the Depart-
ment estimates that the recordkeeping
burden imposed by this ICR will require
five minutes of a legal professional’s time
(with a rate of $119.03/hour) to determine
the relevant plan documents that must be
retained and ten minutes of clerical staff
time (with a labor rate of $26.14/hour) to
organize and file the required documents
to ensure that they are accessible to par-
ticipants, beneficiaries, and Federal and
State governmental agency officials.
With an estimated 98,000 grandfa-
thered plans and 7,400 grandfathered
individual insurance products
36
in 2011,
the Department estimates an hour bur-
den of approximately 26,000 hours with
equivalent costs of $1.5 million. The
Department’s have estimated this as a
one-time cost incurred in 2011, because
after the first year, the Department as-
sumes any future costs will bede minimis.
Overall, for both the grandfathering no-
tice and the recordkeeping requirement,
the Department expects there to be a to-
tal hour burden of 53,000 hours and a cost
burden of $318,000.
The Department notes that persons are
not required to respond to, and generally
are not subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with, an ICR unless the ICR has a
valid OMB control number.
These paperwork burden estimates are
summarized as follows:
Type of Review: New collection.
Agency: Department of Health and Hu-
man Services.
Title: Disclosure and Recordkeeping
Requirements for Grandfathered Health
Plans under the Affordable Care Act.
OMB Number: 0938–1093.
Affected Public: Business; State, Local,
or Tribal Governments.
Respondents: 105,000.
Responses: 20,508,000.
Frequency of Response:One-time.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:
53,000 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:
$318,000.
If you comment on this information col-
lection and recordkeeping requirements,
please do either of the following:
1. Submit your comments electroni-
cally as specified in the ADDRESSES sec-
tion of this proposed rule; or
2. Submit your comments to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Of-
fice of Management and Budget,
Attention: OCIIO Desk Officer,
OCIIO–9991–IFC
Fax: (202) 395–6974; or
Email:
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov
F.Congressional Review Act
These interim final regulations are
subject to the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Reg-
ulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and have
been transmitted to Congress and the
Comptroller General for review.
G.Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104–4) requires agen-
cies to prepare severalanalytic statements
before proposing any rules that may re-
sult in annual expenditures of $100 mil-
lion (as adjusted for inflation) by State, lo-
cal and tribal governments or the private
sector. These interim final regulations are
not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Re-
form Act, because they are being issued
as an interim final regulation. However,
consistent with the policy embodied in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, these in-
terim final regulations have been designed
to be the least burdensome alternative for
State, local and tribal governments, and the
private sector, while achieving the objec-
tives of the Affordable Care Act.
H.Federalism Statement—Department
of Labor and Department of Health and
Human Services
Executive Order 13132 outlines fun-
damental principles of federalism, and
requires the adherence to specific criteria
by federal agencies in the process of their
formulation and implementation of poli-
cies that have ’’substantial direct effects’’
on the States, the relationship between the
national government and States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government.
Federal agencies promulgating regulations
that have these federalism implications
must consult with Stateand local officials,
and describe the extent of their consulta-
tion and the nature of the concerns of State
and local officials in the preamble to the
regulation.
In the Departments’ view, this regula-
tion has federalism implications, because
35
EBSA estimates of labor rates include wages, other benefits, and overhead based on the National Occupational Employment Survey (May 2008, Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the Em-
ployment Cost Index June 2009, Bureau of Labor Statistics).
36
The Department is not certain on the number of products offered in the individual market and requests comments. After reviewing the number of productsoffered by various insurers in
the individual market the Department used an estimate of 15 which it believes is a high estimate.
July 19, 2010762010–29 I.R.B.

it has direct effects on the States, the rela-
tionship between the national government
and States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among various levels
of government. However, in the Depart-
ments’ view, the federalism implications
of the regulation is substantially mitigated
because, with respect to health insurance
issuers, the Departments expect that the
majority of States will enact laws or take
other appropriate action resulting in their
meeting or exceeding the federal standard.
In general, through section 514, ERISA
supersedes State laws to the extent that
they relate to any covered employee
benefit plan, and preserves State laws
that regulate insurance, banking, or se-
curities. While ERISA prohibits States
from regulating a plan as an insurance
or investment company or bank, the pre-
emption provisions of ERISA section
731 and PHS Act section 2724 (im-
plemented in 29 CFR 2590.731(a) and
45 CFR 146.143(a)) apply so that the
HIPAA requirements (including those of
theAffordableCareAct)arenottobe
’’construed to supersede any provision of
State law which establishes, implements,
or continues in effect any standard or
requirement solely relating to health
insurance issuers in connection with group
health insurance coverage except to the
extent that such standard or requirement
prevents the application of a requirement’’
of a federal standard. The conference
report accompanyingHIPAA indicates
that this is intended to be the ’’narrowest’’
preemption of State laws. (See House
Conf. Rep. No. 104–736, at 205, reprinted
in 1996 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 2018.) States may continue to
apply State law requirements except to
the extent that such requirements prevent
the application of the Affordable Care
Act requirements that are the subject of
this rulemaking. State insurance laws
that are more stringent than the federal
requirements are unlikely to ’’prevent
the application of’’ the Affordable Care
Act, and be preempted. Accordingly,
States have significant latitude to impose
requirements on health insurance issuers
that are more restrictive than the federal
law.
In compliance with the requirement of
Executive Order 13132 that agencies ex-
amine closely any policies that may have
federalism implications or limit the policy
making discretion of the States, the De-
partments have engaged in efforts to con-
sultwithandworkcooperativelywithaf-
fected State and local officials, including
attending conferences of the National As-
sociation of Insurance Commissioners and
consulting with State insurance officials on
an individual basis. It is expected that the
Departments will act in a similar fashion in
enforcing the Affordable Care Act require-
ments. Throughout the process of devel-
oping these regulations, to the extent fea-
sible within the specific preemption pro-
visions of HIPAA as it applies to the Af-
fordable Care Act, the Departments have
attempted to balance the States’ interests
in regulating health insurance issuers, and
Congress’ intent to provide uniform min-
imum protections to consumers in every
State. By doing so, it is the Departments’
view that they have complied with the re-
quirements of Executive Order 13132.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in section 8(a) of Executive Order 13132,
and by the signatures affixed to these reg-
ulations, the Departments certify that the
Employee Benefits Security Administra-
tion and the Office of Consumer Informa-
tion and Insurance Oversight have com-
plied with the requirements of Executive
Order 13132 for the attached regulation in
a meaningful and timely manner.
V. Statutory Authority
The Department of the Treasury tem-
porary regulations are adopted pursuant to
the authority contained in sections 7805
and 9833 of the Code.
The Department of Labor interim final
regulations are adopted pursuant to the
authority contained in 29 U.S.C. 1027,
1059, 1135, 1161–1168, 1169, 1181–1183,
1181 note, 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1191,
1191a, 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g),
Pub. L.104–191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec.
401(b), Pub. L. 105–200, 112 Stat. 645
(42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 512(d), Pub. L.
110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. 1001, 1201,
and 1562(e), Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat.
119, as amended by Pub. L. 111–152, 124
Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor’s Order
6–2009, 74 FR 21524 (May 7, 2009).
The Department of Health and Hu-
man Services interim final regulations are
adopted pursuant to the authority con-
tained in sections 2701 through 2763,
2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42 USC
300gg through 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and
300gg–92), as amended.
*****
Health care, Health insurance, Report-
ing and recordkeeping requirements, and
State regulation of health insurance.
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for
Services and Enforcement,
Internal Revenue Service.
ApprovedJune 10, 2010.
Michael F. Mundaca,
Assistant Secretary
oftheTreasury(TaxPolicy).
Signed this4thday ofJune, 2010.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary
Employee Benefits
Security Administration
Department of Labor
OCIIO–9991–IFC
Approved:June 8, 2010.
Jay Angoff,
Director,
Office of Consumer Information
and Insurance Oversight.
Approved:June 9, 2010.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Chapter I
Accordingly, 26 CFR Parts 54 and 602
are amended as follows:
PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXES
1. The authority citation for part
54 is amended by adding entries for
§§54.9815–1251T and 54.9815–2714T in
numerical order to read in part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Section 54.9815–1251T also issued un-
der 26 U.S.C. 9833.
Section 54.9815–2714T also issued un-
der 26 U.S.C. 9833. * * *
2. Section 54.9815–1251T is added to
read as follows:
2010–29 I.R.B.77July 19, 2010

§54.9815–1251T Preservation of right to
maintain existing coverage (temporary).
(a)Definition of grandfathered health
plan coverage—(1)In general—(i)
Grandfathered health plan coverage
means coverage provided by a group
health plan, or a health insurance issuer,
in which an individual was enrolled on
March 23, 2010 (for as long as it main-
tains that status under the rules of this
section). A group health plan or group
health insurance coverage does not cease
to be grandfathered health plan coverage
merely because one or more (or even all)
individuals enrolled on March 23, 2010
cease to be covered, provided that the
plan or group health insurance coverage
has continuously covered someone since
March 23, 2010 (not necessarily the same
person, but at all times at least one per-
son). For purposes of this section, a plan
or health insurance coverage that provides
grandfathered health plan coverage is re-
ferred to as a grandfathered health plan.
The rules of this section apply separately
to each benefit package made available
under a group health plan or health insur-
ance coverage.
(ii) Subject to the rules of paragraph (f)
of this section for collectively bargained
plans, if an employer or employee organi-
zation enters into a new policy, certificate,
or contract of insurance after March 23,
2010 (because, for example, any previous
policy, certificate, or contract of insurance
is not being renewed), then that policy, cer-
tificate, or contract of insurance is not a
grandfathered health plan with respect to
the individuals in the group health plan.
(2)Disclosure of grandfather sta-
tus—(i) To maintain status as a grand-
fathered health plan, a plan or health
insurance coverage must include a state-
ment, in any plan materials provided to a
participant or beneficiary describing the
benefits provided under the plan or health
insurance coverage, that the plan or cov-
erage believes it is a grandfathered health
plan within the meaning of section 1251 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act and must provide contact information
for questions and complaints.
(ii) The following model language can
be used to satisfy this disclosure require-
ment:
This [group health plan or health
insurance issuer] believes this [plan or
coverage] is a “grandfathered health
plan” under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (the Affordable
Care Act). As permitted by the Af-
fordable Care Act, a grandfathered
health plan can preserve certain basic
health coverage that was already in
effect when that law was enacted. Be-
ing a grandfathered health plan means
that your [plan or policy] may not in-
clude certain consumer protections of
the Affordable Care Act that apply to
other plans, for example, the require-
ment for the provision of preventive
health services without any cost shar-
ing. However, grandfathered health
plans must comply with certain other
consumer protections in the Affordable
Care Act, for example, the elimination
of lifetime limits on benefits.
Questions regarding which protec-
tions apply and which protections do
not apply to a grandfathered health plan
andwhatmightcauseaplantochange
from grandfathered health plan status
can be directed to the plan adminis-
trator at [insert contact information].
[For ERISA plans, insert: You may
also contact the Employee Benefits
Security Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor at 1–866–444–3272
orwww.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform.
This website has a table summariz-
ing which protections do and do not
apply to grandfathered health plans.]
[For individual market policies and
nonfederal governmental plans, insert:
You may also contact the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services at
www.healthreform.gov.]
(3)Documentation of plan or policy
terms on March 23, 2010. To maintain sta-
tusasagrandfathered health plan, a group
health plan, or group health insurance cov-
erage, must, for as long as the plan or
health insurance coverage takes the posi-
tion that it is a grandfathered health plan
—
(i) Maintain records documenting the
terms of the plan or health insurance cov-
erage in connection with the coverage in
effect on March 23, 2010, and any other
documents necessary to verify, explain, or
clarify its status as a grandfathered health
plan; and
(ii) Make such records available for ex-
amination upon request.
(4)Family members enrolling after
March 23, 2010. With respect to an indi-
vidual who is enrolled in a group health
plan or health insurance coverage on
March 23, 2010, grandfathered health
plan coverage includes coverage of fam-
ily members of the individual who enroll
after March 23, 2010 in the grandfathered
health plan coverage of the individual.
(5)Examples. The rules of this para-
graph (a) are illustrated by the following
examples:
Example 1.(i)Facts. A group health plan not
maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agree-
ment provides coverage through a group health insur-
ance policy from Issuer X on March 23, 2010. For the
plan year beginning January 1, 2012, the plan enters
into a new policy with Issuer Z.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 1, for the plan
year beginning January 1, 2012, the group health in-
surance coverage issued by Z is not a grandfathered
health plan under the rules of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of
thissectionbecausethepolicyissuedbyZdidnot
provide coverage on March 23, 2010.
Example 2.(i)Facts. A group health plan not
maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agree-
ment offers three benefit packages on March 23,
2010. Option F is a self-insured option. Options G
and H are insured options. Beginning July 1, 2013,
the plan replaces the issuer for Option H with a new
issuer.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 2, the coverage
under Option H is not grandfathered health plan cov-
erage as of July 1, 2013, consistent with the rule in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Whether the cov-
erage under Options F and Gis grandfathered health
plan coverage is determined under the rules of this
section, including paragraph (g) of this section. If
the plan enters into a new policy, certificate, or con-
tract of insurance for Option G, Option G’s status as
a grandfathered health plan would cease under para-
graph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(b)Allowance for new employees to
join current plan—(1)In general. Subject
to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a group
health plan (including health insurance
coverage provided in connection with the
group health plan) that provided cover-
age on March 23, 2010 and has retained
its status as a grandfathered health plan
(consistent with the rules of this section,
including paragraph (g) of this section)
is grandfathered health plan coverage for
new employees (whether newly hired or
newly enrolled) and their families en-
rolling in the plan after March 23, 2010.
(2)Anti-abuse rules—(i)Mergers and
acquisitions. If the principal purpose of
a merger, acquisition, or similar business
restructuring is to cover new individuals
under a grandfathered health plan, the plan
ceases to be a grandfathered health plan.
July 19, 2010782010–29 I.R.B.

(ii)Change in plan eligibility. A group
health plan or health insurance coverage
(including a benefitpackage under a group
health plan) ceases to be a grandfathered
health plan if —
(A) Employees are transferred into the
plan or health insurance coverage (the
transferee plan) from a plan or health
insurance coverage under which the em-
ployees were covered on March 23, 2010
(the transferor plan);
(B) Comparing the terms of the trans-
feree plan with those of the transferor plan
(as in effect on March 23, 2010) and treat-
ing the transferee plan as if it were an
amendment of the transferor plan would
cause a loss of grandfather status under the
provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of this sec-
tion; and
(C)Therewasnobonafideemploy-
ment-based reason to transfer the employ-
ees into the transferee plan. For this pur-
pose, changing the terms or cost of cover-
age is not a bona fide employment-based
reason.
(3)Examples. Therulesofthispara-
graph (b) are illustrated by the following
examples:
Example 1.(i)Facts. A group health plan offers
two benefit packages on March 23, 2010, Options F
and G. During a subsequent open enrollment period,
some of the employees enrolled in Option F on
March 23, 2010 switch to Option G.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 1, the group
health coverage provided under Option G remains
a grandfathered health plan under the rules of para-
graph (b)(1) of this section because employees pre-
viously enrolled in Option F are allowed to enroll in
Option G as new employees.
Example 2.(i)Facts. Same facts asExample 1,
except that the plan sponsor eliminates Option F be-
cause of its high cost and transfers employees covered
under Option F to Option G. If instead of transferring
employees from Option F to Option G, Option F was
amendedtomatchthetermsofOptionG,thenOption
F would cease to be a grandfathered health plan.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 2,theplan
did not have a bona fide employment-based reason
to transfer employees from Option F to Option G.
Therefore, Option G ceases to be a grandfathered
health plan with respect to all employees. (However,
any other benefit package maintained by the plan
sponsor is analyzed separately under the rules of this
section.)
Example 3.(i)Facts. A group health plan offers
two benefit packages on March 23, 2010, Options H
andI.OnMarch23,2010,OptionHprovidescover-
age only for employees in one manufacturing plant.
Subsequently, the plant is closed, and some employ-
ees in the closed plant are moved to another plant.
The employer eliminates Option H and the employees
that are moved are transferred to Option I. If instead
of transferring employees from Option H to Option I,
Option H was amended to match the terms of Option
I, then Option H would cease to be a grandfathered
health plan.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 3, the plan has
a bona fide employment-based reason to transfer em-
ployees from Option H to Option I. Therefore, Option
I does not cease to be a grandfathered health plan.
(c)General grandfathering rule—(1)
Exceptasprovidedinparagraphs (d) and
(e) of this section, subtitles A and C of
title I of the Patient Protection and Af-
fordable Care Act (and the amendments
made by those subtitles, and the incorpo-
ration of those amendments into section
9815 and ERISA section 715) do not ap-
ply to grandfathered health plan coverage.
Accordingly, the provisions of PHS Act
sections 2701, 2702, 2703, 2705, 2706,
2707, 2709 (relating to coverage for in-
dividuals participating in approved clini-
cal trials, as added by section 10103 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act), 2713, 2715A, 2716, 2717, 2719, and
2719A, as added or amended by the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, do not
apply to grandfathered health plans. (In
addition,see45 CFR 147.140(c), which
provides that the provisions of PHS Act
section 2704, and PHS Act section 2711
insofar as it relates to annual limits, do not
apply to grandfathered health plans that are
individual health insurance coverage.)
(2) To the extent not inconsistent with
the rules applicable to a grandfathered
health plan, a grandfathered health plan
must comply with the requirements of the
Code, the PHS Act, and ERISA applicable
prior to the changes enacted by the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
(d)Provisions applicable to all grand-
fathered health plans. The provisions of
PHS Act section 2711 insofar as it re-
lates to lifetime limits, and the provisions
of PHS Act sections 2712, 2714, 2715,
and 2718, apply to grandfathered health
plans for plan years beginning on or af-
ter September 23, 2010. The provisions
of PHS Act section 2708 apply to grand-
fathered health plans for plan years begin-
ning on or after January 1, 2014.
(e)Applicability of PHS Act sections
2704, 2711, and 2714 to grandfathered
group health plans and group health in-
surance coverage—(1) The provisions of
PHS Act section 2704 as it applies with
respect to enrollees who are under 19 years
of age, and the provisions of PHS Act sec-
tion 2711 insofar as it relates to annual lim-
its, apply to grandfathered health plans that
are group health plans (including group
health insurance coverage) for plan years
beginning on or after September 23, 2010.
The provisions of PHS Act section 2704
apply generally to grandfathered health
plans that are group health plans (including
group health insurance coverage) for plan
years beginning on or after January 1,
2014.
(2) For plan years beginning before Jan-
uary 1, 2014, the provisions of PHS Act
section 2714 apply in the case of an adult
child with respect to a grandfathered health
plan that is a group health plan only if the
adult child is not eligible to enroll in an el-
igible employer-sponsored health plan (as
defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) other than
a grandfathered health plan of a parent.
For plan years beginning on or after Jan-
uary 1, 2014, the provisions of PHS Act
section 2714 apply with respect to a grand-
fathered health plan that is a group health
plan without regard to whether an adult
child is eligible to enroll in any other cov-
erage.
(f)Effect on collectively bargained
plans—(1)In general. In the case of
health insurance coverage maintained pur-
suant to one or more collective bargaining
agreements between employee represen-
tatives and one or more employers that
was ratified before March 23, 2010, the
coverage is grandfathered health plan cov-
erage at least until the date on which the
last of the collective bargaining agree-
ments relating to the coverage that was
in effect on March 23, 2010 terminates.
Any coverage amendment made pursuant
to a collective bargaining agreement re-
lating to the coverage that amends the
coverage solely to conform to any require-
ment added by subtitles A and C of title
I of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (and the amendments made by
those subtitles, and the incorporation of
those amendments into section 9815 and
ERISA section 715) is not treated as a
termination of the collective bargaining
agreement. After the date on which the
last of the collective bargaining agree-
ments relating to the coverage that was
in effect on March 23, 2010 terminates,
the determination of whether health
insurance coverage maintained pursuant
to a collective bargaining agreement is
grandfathered health plan coverage is
made under the rules of this section other
than this paragraph (f) (comparing the
2010–29 I.R.B.79July 19, 2010

terms of the health insurance coverage
after the date the last collective bargaining
agreement terminates with the terms of
the health insurance coverage that were
in effect on March 23, 2010) and, for any
changes in insurance coverage after the
termination of the collective bargaining
agreement, under the rules of paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2)Examples. Therulesofthispara-
graph (f) are illustrated by the following
examples:
Example 1.(i)Facts. A group health plan main-
tained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement
provides coverage through a group health insurance
policy from Issuer W on March 23, 2010. The col-
lective bargaining agreement has not been amended
and will not expire before December 31, 2011. The
group health plan enters into a new group health in-
surance policy with Issuer Y for the plan year starting
on January 1, 2011.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 1, the group
health plan, and the group health insurance policy
provided by Y, remains a grandfathered health plan
with respect to existing employees and new employ-
ees and their families because the coverage is main-
tained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement
ratified prior to March 23, 2010 that has not termi-
nated.
Example 2.(i)Facts. Same facts asExample 1,
except the coverage with Y is renewed under a new
collective bargaining agreement effective January 1,
2012, with the only changes since March 23, 2010
being changes that do not cause the plan to cease to
be a grandfathered health plan under the rules of this
section, including paragraph (g) of this section.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 2, the group
health plan remains a grandfathered health plan
pursuant to the rules of this section. Moreover, the
group health insurance policy provided by Y remains
a grandfathered health plan under the rules of this
section, including paragraph (g) of this section.
(g)Maintenance of grandfather sta-
tus—(1)Changes causing cessation of
grandfather status. Subject to paragraph
(g)(2) of this section, the rules of this para-
graph (g)(1) describe situations in which a
group health plan or health insurance cov-
erage ceases to be a grandfathered health
plan.
(i)Elimination of benefits.Theelim-
ination of all or substantially all benefits
to diagnose or treat a particular condition
causes a group health plan or health in-
surance coverage to cease to be a grand-
fathered health plan. For this purpose, the
elimination of benefits for any necessary
element to diagnose or treat a condition is
considered the elimination of all or sub-
stantially all benefits to diagnose or treat
a particular condition.
(ii)Increase in percentage cost-shar-
ing requirement. Any increase, measured
from March 23, 2010, in a percentage cost-
sharing requirement (such as an individ-
ual’s coinsurance requirement) causes a
group health plan or health insurance cov-
erage to cease to be a grandfathered health
plan.
(iii)Increase in a fixed-amount cost-
sharing requirement other than a copay-
ment.Any increase in a fixed-amount
cost-sharing requirement other than a co-
payment (for example, deductible or out-
of-pocket limit), determined as of the ef-
fective date of the increase, causes a group
health plan or health insurance coverage to
cease to be a grandfathered health plan, if
the total percentage increase in the cost-
sharing requirement measured from March
23, 2010 exceeds the maximum percentage
increase (as defined in paragraph (g)(3)(ii)
of this section).
(iv)Increase in a fixed-amount copay-
ment. Any increase in a fixed-amount co-
payment, determined as of the effective
date of the increase, causes a group health
plan or health insurance coverage to cease
to be a grandfathered health plan, if the
total increase in the copayment measured
from March 23, 2010 exceeds the greater
of:
(A)Anamountequalto$5increasedby
medical inflation, as defined in paragraph
(g)(3)(i) of this section (that is, $5 times
medical inflation, plus $5), or
(B) The maximum percentage increase
(as defined in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this
section), determined by expressing the to-
tal increase in the copayment as a percent-
age.
(v)Decrease in contribution rate by em-
ployers and employee organizations—(A)
Contribution rate based on cost of cover-
age. A group health plan or group health
insurance coverage ceases to be a grandfa-
thered health plan if the employer or em-
ployee organization decreases its contri-
bution rate based on cost of coverage (as
defined in paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(A) of this
section) towards the cost of any tier of cov-
erage for any class of similarly situated in-
dividuals (as described in §54.9802–1(d))
by more than 5 percentage points below
the contribution rate for the coverage pe-
riod that includes March 23, 2010.
(B)Contribution rate based on a for-
mula. A group health plan or group health
insurance coverage ceases to be a grandfa-
thered health plan if the employer or em-
ployee organization decreases its contribu-
tion rate based on a formula (as defined
in paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(B) of this section)
towards the cost of any tier of coverage
for any class of similarly situated individ-
uals (as described in §54.9802–1(d)) by
more than 5 percent below the contribution
rate for the coverage period that includes
March 23, 2010.
(vi)Changes in annual limits—(A)Ad-
dition of an annual limit. A group health
plan, or group health insurance coverage,
that, on March 23, 2010, did not impose
an overall annual or lifetime limit on the
dollar value of all benefits ceases to be
a grandfathered health plan if the plan
or health insurance coverage imposes an
overall annual limit on the dollar value of
benefits.
(B)Decrease in limit for a plan or cov-
erage with only a lifetime limit. A group
health plan, or group health insurance cov-
erage, that, on March23, 2010, imposed an
overall lifetime limit on the dollar value of
all benefits but no overall annual limit on
the dollar value of all benefits ceases to be
a grandfathered health plan if the plan or
health insurance coverage adopts an over-
all annual limit at a dollar value that is
lower than the dollar value of the lifetime
limit on March 23, 2010.
(C)Decrease in limit for a plan or
coverage with an annual limit. A group
health plan, or group health insurance cov-
erage, that, on March 23, 2010, imposed
an overall annual limit on the dollar value
of all benefits ceases to be a grandfathered
health plan if the plan or health insurance
coverage decreases the dollar value of the
annual limit (regardless of whether the
plan or health insurance coverage also im-
posed an overall lifetime limit on March
23, 2010 on the dollar value of all bene-
fits).
(2)Transitional rules—(i)Changes
made prior to March 23, 2010. If a group
health plan or health insurance issuer
makes the following changes to the terms
of the plan or health insurance coverage,
the changes are considered part of the
terms of the plan or health insurance cov-
erage on March 23, 2010 even though
theywerenoteffectiveatthattimeand
such changes do not cause a plan or health
insurance coverage to cease to be a grand-
fathered health plan:
(A) Changes effective after March 23,
2010 pursuant to a legally binding contract
entered into on or before March 23, 2010;
July 19, 2010802010–29 I.R.B.

(B) Changes effective after March 23,
2010 pursuant to a filing on or before
March 23, 2010 with a State insurance
department; or
(C) Changes effective after March 23,
2010 pursuant to written amendments to
a plan that were adopted on or before
March 23, 2010.
(ii)Changes made after March 23,
2010 and adopted prior to issuance of
regulations. If, after March 23, 2010, a
group health plan or health insurance is-
suer makes changes to the terms of the
plan or health insurance coverage and
the changes are adopted prior to June 14,
2010, the changes will not cause the plan
or health insurance coverage to cease to be
a grandfathered health plan if the changes
are revoked or modified effective as of
the first day of the first plan year (in the
individual market, policy year) beginning
on or after September 23, 2010, and the
terms of the plan or health insurance cov-
erage on that date, as modified, would not
cause the plan or coverage to cease to be a
grandfathered health plan under the rules
of this section, including paragraph (g)(1)
of this section. For this purpose, changes
will be considered to have been adopted
prior to June 14, 2010 if:
(A) The changes are effective before
that date;
(B) The changes are effective on or af-
ter that date pursuant to a legally binding
contract entered into before that date;
(C) The changes are effective on or after
that date pursuant to a filing before that
date with a State insurance department; or
(D) The changes are effective on or af-
ter that date pursuant to written amend-
ments to a plan that were adopted before
that date.
(3)Definitions—(i)Medical inflation
defined. For purposes of this paragraph
(g), the termmedical inflationmeans the
increase since March 2010 in the overall
medical care component of the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers
(CPI-U) (unadjusted) published by the De-
partment of Labor using the 1982 — 1984
base of 100. For this purpose, the increase
in the overall medical care component
is computed by subtracting 387.142 (the
overall medical care component of the
CPI-U (unadjusted) published by the De-
partment of Labor for March 2010, using
the 1982 — 1984 base of 100) from the
index amount for any month in the 12
months before the new change is to take
effect and then dividing that amount by
387.142.
(ii)Maximum percentage increase de-
fined. For purposes of this paragraph (g),
the termmaximum percentage increase
means medical inflation (as defined in
paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section), ex-
pressed as a percentage, plus 15 percent-
age points.
(iii)Contribution rate defined. For pur-
poses of paragraph (g)(1)(v) of this sec-
tion:
(A)Contribution rate based on cost
of coverage.Thetermcontribution rate
basedoncostofcoveragemeans the
amount of contributions made by an em-
ployer or employee organization compared
to the total cost of coverage, expressed as
a percentage. The total cost of coverage is
determined in the same manner as the ap-
plicable premium iscalculated under the
COBRA continuation provisions of sec-
tion 4980B(f)(4), section 604 of ERISA,
and section 2204 of the PHS Act. In the
case of a self-insured plan, contributions
by an employer or employee organization
are equal to the total cost of coverage mi-
nus the employee contributions towards
the total cost of coverage.
(B)Contribution rate based on a for-
mula.Thetermcontribution rate based
onaformulameans, for plans that, on
March 23, 2010, made contributions based
on a formula (such as hours worked or tons
of coal mined), the formula.
(4)Examples. Therulesofthispara-
graph (g) are illustrated by the following
examples:
Example 1.(i)Facts. On March 23, 2010, a
grandfathered health plan has a coinsurance require-
ment of 20% for inpatient surgery. The plan is subse-
quently amended to increase the coinsurance require-
ment to 25%.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 1, the increase in
the coinsurance requirement from 20% to 25% causes
the plan to cease to be a grandfathered health plan.
Example 2.(i)Facts. Before March 23, 2010, the
terms of a group health plan provide benefits for a
particular mental health condition, the treatment for
which is a combination of counseling and prescrip-
tion drugs. Subsequently, the plan eliminates benefits
for counseling.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 2, the plan ceases
to be a grandfathered health plan because counseling
is an element that is necessary to treat the condition.
Thus the plan is considered to have eliminated sub-
stantially all benefits for the treatment of the condi-
tion.
Example 3.(i)Facts. On March 23, 2010, a
grandfathered health plan has a copayment require-
ment of $30 per office visit for specialists. The plan is
subsequently amended to increase the copayment re-
quirement to $40. Within the 12-month period before
the $40 copayment takes effect, the greatest value of
the overall medical care component of the CPI-U (un-
adjusted) is 475.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 3, the increase in
the copayment from $30 to $40, expressed as a per-
centage, is 33.33% (40 - 30 = 10; 10 ÷ 30 = 0.3333;
0.3333 = 33.33%). Medical inflation (as defined in
paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section) from March 2010
is 0.2269 (475 - 387.142 = 87.858; 87.858 ÷ 387.142
= 0.2269). The maximum percentage increase per-
mitted is 37.69% (0.2269 = 22.69%; 22.69% + 15% =
37.69%). Because 33.33% does not exceed 37.69%,
the change in the copayment requirement at that time
does not cause the plan to cease to be a grandfathered
health plan.
Example 4.(i)Facts. Same facts asExample 3,
except the grandfathered health plan subsequently in-
creases the $40 copayment requirement to $45 for a
later plan year. Within the 12-month period before
the $45 copayment takes effect, the greatest value of
the overall medical care component of the CPI-U (un-
adjusted) is 485.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 4, the increase
in the copayment from $30 (the copayment that was
in effect on March 23, 2010) to $45, expressed as a
percentage, is 50% (45 - 30 = 15; 15 ÷ 30 = 0.5; 0.5
= 50%). Medical inflation (as defined in paragraph
(g)(3)(i) of this section) from March 2010 is 0.2527
(485 - 387.142 = 97.858; 97.858 ÷ 387.142 = 0.2527).
The increase that would cause a plan to cease to be a
grandfathered health plan under paragraph (g)(1)(iv)
of this section is the greater of the maximum percent-
age increase of 40.27% (0.2527 = 25.27%; 25.27% +
15% = 40.27%), or $6.26 ($5 x 0.2527 = $1.26; $1.26
+ $5 = $6.26).
Because 50% exceeds 40.27% and $15 exceeds
$6.26, the change in the copayment requirement at
that time causes the plan to cease to be a grandfa-
thered health plan.
Example 5.(i)Facts. On March 23, 2010, a
grandfathered health plan has a copayment of $10 per
office visit for primary care providers. The plan is
subsequently amended to increase the copayment re-
quirement to $15. Within the 12-month period before
the $15 copayment takes effect, the greatest value of
the overall medical care component of the CPI-U (un-
adjusted) is 415.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 5, the increase
in the copayment, expressed as a percentage, is 50%
(15 - 10 = 5; 5 ÷ 10 = 0.5; 0.5 = 50%). Medical
inflation (as defined in paragraph (g)(3) of this sec-
tion) from March 2010 is 0.0720 (415.0 - 387.142 =
27.858; 27.858 ÷ 387.142 = 0.0720). The increase
that would cause a plan to cease to be a grandfathered
health plan under paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section
is the greater of the maximum percentage increase of
22.20% (0.0720 = 7.20%; 7.20% + 15% = 22.20), or
$5.36 ($5 x 0.0720 = $0.36; $0.36 + $5 = $5.36). The
$5 increase in copayment in this
Example 5would
not cause the plan to cease to be a grandfathered
health plan pursuant to paragraph (g)(1)(iv)this sec-
tion, which would permit an increase in the copay-
ment of up to $5.36.
Example 6.(i)Facts. The same facts asExam-
ple 5, except on March 23, 2010, the grandfathered
health plan has no copayment ($0) for office visits
2010–29 I.R.B.81July 19, 2010

for primary care providers. The plan is subsequently
amended to increase the copayment requirement to
$5.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 6, medical in-
flation (as defined in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this sec-
tion) from March 2010 is 0.0720 (415.0 - 387.142 =
27.858; 27.858 ÷ 387.142 = 0.0720). The increase
that would cause a plan to cease to be a grandfathered
health plan under paragraph (g)(1)(iv)(A) of this sec-
tion is $5.36 ($5 x 0.0720 = $0.36; $0.36 + $5 =
$5.36). The $5 increase in copayment in thisExample
6is less than the amount calculated pursuant to para-
graph (g)(1)(iv)(A) of this section of $5.36. Thus, the
$5 increase in copayment does not cause the plan to
cease to be a grandfathered health plan.
Example 7.(i)Facts. On March 23, 2010, a
self-insured group health plan provides two tiers of
coverage — self-only and family. The employer con-
tributes 80% of the total cost of coverage for self-only
and 60% of the total cost of coverage for family. Sub-
sequently, the employer reduces the contribution to
50% for family coverage, but keeps the same contri-
bution rate for self-only coverage.
(ii)Conclusion. In thisExample 7, the decrease
of 10 percentage points for family coverage in the
contribution rate based on cost of coverage causes the
plan to cease to be a grandfathered health plan. The
fact that the contribution rate for self-only coverage
remains the same doesnot change the result.
Example 8.(i)Facts. On March 23, 2010, a
self-insured grandfathered health plan has a COBRA
premium for the 2010 plan year of $5000 for self-
only coverage and $12,000 for family coverage. The
required employee contribution for the coverage is
$1000 for self-only coverage and $4000 for family
coverage. Thus, the contribution rate based on cost
of coverage for 2010 is 80% ((5000 - 1000)/5000) for
self-only coverage and 67% ((12,000 - 4000)/12,000)
for family coverage. For a subsequent plan year, the
COBRA premium is $6000 for self-only coverage
and $15,000 for family coverage. The employee con-
tributions for that plan year are $1200 for self-only
coverage and $5000 for family coverage. Thus, the
contribution rate based oncost of coverage is 80%
((6000 - 1200)/6000) for self-only coverage and 67%
((15,000 - 5000)/15,000) for family coverage.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 8, because there
is no change in the contribution rate based on cost of
coverage, the plan retains its status as a grandfathered
health plan. The result would be the same if all or
part of the employee contribution was made pre-tax
through a cafeteria plan under section 125 of the In-
ternal Revenue Code.
Example 9.(i)Facts. Before March 23, 2010,
Employer W and Individual B enter into a legally
binding employment contract that promises B life-
time health coverage upon termination. Prior to ter-
mination, B is covered by W’s self-insured grandfa-
thered group health plan. Bis terminated after March
23, 2010 and W purchases a new health insurance pol-
icy providing coverage to B, consistent with the terms
of the employment contract.
(ii)Conclusion.InthisExample 9, because no
individual is enrolled in the health insurance policy
on March 23, 2010, it is not a grandfathered health
plan.
(h)Expiration date. This section ex-
pires on or before June 14, 2013.
3. Section 54.9815–2714T is amended
by revising paragraphs (h) and (i) to read
as follows:
*****
(h)Applicability date. The provisions
of this section apply for plan years begin-
ning on or after September 23, 2010.See
§54.9815–1251T for determining the ap-
plication of this section to grandfathered
health plans.
(i)Expiration date. This section expires
on or before May 10, 2013.
PART 602—OMB CONTROL
NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK
REDUCTION ACT
4. The authority citation for part 602
continues to read in part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
5. Section 602.101(b) is amended by
adding the following entry in numerical
order to the table to read as follows:
§602.101 OMB Control numbers.
*****
(b) * * *
CFR part or section where
identified and described
Current OMB
control No.
*****
54.9815–1251T
...........................................................
1545–2178
*****
(Filed by
the Office of the Federal Register on June 14, 2010,
11:15 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register
for June 17, 2010, 75 F.R. 34537)
July 19, 2010822010–29 I.R.B.

Part III. Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous
Information Reporting Under
the Amendments to Section
6041 for Payments to
Corporations and Payments
of Gross Proceeds and With
Respect to Property
Notice 2010–51
PURPOSE
This notice invites public comments
regarding guidance to be provided con-
cerning new requirements with respect
to the reporting of payments made in the
course of the payor’s trade or business.
The new reporting requirements are in
section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code
(the Code), which was amended by sec-
tion 9006 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. No.
111–148, 124 Stat. 119 (the Act). Very
generally, these amendments expand ex-
isting information reporting requirements
to apply to payments made to corporations
and to include certain payments of gross
proceeds and with respect to property. The
new reporting requirements under these
amendments apply to payments made after
December 31, 2011.
BACKGROUND
Section 6041 generally requires infor-
mation returns to be made by every per-
son (payor) engaged in a trade or business
who makes payments, as defined in sec-
tion 6041(a), aggregating $600 or more in
any taxable year to another person (payee)
in the course of the payor’s trade or busi-
ness. The information returns must be
filed with the Internal Revenue Service
and corresponding statements must be sent
to each payee. Form 1099–MISC,Mis-
cellaneous Income,is generally used for
this purpose, although Form W–2,Wage
and Tax Statement, is generally used for
payments to employees.SeeTreas. Reg.
§1.6041–1(a)(2).
The Act amended section 6041(a) to
add payments of “amounts in considera-
tion for property” and “gross proceeds” to
the list of payments subject to reporting.
However, the Act retained existing ex-
ceptions in section 6041(a) for “payments
to which section 6042(a)(1), 6044(a)(1),
6047(e), 6049(a), or 6050N(a) applies,”
and “payments with respect to which a
statement is required under the author-
ity of section 6042(a)(2), 6044(a)(2), or
6045.” These excepted payments include
most interest, dividends, royalties, and
securities and broker transactions.
The Act also added new section 6041(h)
regarding the application of section 6041
to payments made to corporations. Exist-
ing regulations under section 6041 gener-
ally except payments to corporations, ex-
empt organizations, governmental entities,
international organizations, and retirement
plans from reportingunder section 6041.
SeeTreas. Reg. §1.6041–3(p). New sec-
tion 6041(h) provides that, notwithstand-
ing any regulation prescribed by the Secre-
tary before the date of enactment, for pur-
poses of section 6041, the term “person”
includes any corporation that is not an or-
ganization exempt from tax under section
501(a). Thus, under new section 6041(h),
payments to corporations that are not tax-
exempt may be subject to information re-
porting.
Finally, the Act added new section
6041(i) authorizingthe Secretary to pre-
scribe such regulations and other guidance
as may be appropriate or necessary to carry
out the purposes of section 6041, includ-
ing rules to prevent duplicative reporting
of transactions. Also, section 6041(a) pro-
vides generally that information returns
under section 6041 shall be furnished un-
dersuchregulationsandinsuchformand
manner, and to such extent, as may be
prescribed by the Secretary.
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Treasury Department and the Inter-
nal Revenue Service intend to issue guid-
ance that will implement these changes to
section 6041 in a manner that minimizes
burden and avoids duplicative reporting.
This notice requests comments regarding
possible approaches to the section 6041
guidance that will assist in achieving those
goals.
For example, the Treasury Department
and the Internal Revenue Service have al-
ready issued a proposed regulation that
would allow a broad exception from sec-
tion 6041 information reporting for pay-
ment card transactions that would other-
wise be reportable under section 6050W
of the Code, effective for payments begin-
ning in 2011. This proposed regulation is
expected to be finalized later this summer.
Thus, business purchases made with pay-
ment cards will be exempt from informa-
tion reporting under section 6041.
The Treasury Department and the Inter-
nal Revenue Service request comments on
additional circumstances in which duplica-
tive reporting might otherwise occur un-
der section 6041 and another Code section,
such as section 3402(t), and on rules that
would prevent such duplicative reporting.
Specific comments are also requested re-
garding the burden associated with imple-
menting the new reporting requirements
for different types of taxpayers and busi-
nesses.
Additional issues on which comments
are requested include:
1. The appropriate scope of the terms
“gross proceeds” and “amounts in consid-
eration for property” in section 6041(a), as
amended, and how to interpret these terms
in a manner that minimizes the reporting
burden and avoids duplicative reporting.
2. Whether or how the expanded report-
ing requirements should apply to payments
between affiliated corporations, such as
payments related to intercompany transac-
tions within the same consolidated group.
3. The appropriate time and manner
of reporting to the Service, and what, if
any, changes to existing practices for Form
1099 information reporting to the Service
are needed to minimize burden in compli-
ance with the new reporting requirements.
4. What, if any, changes to Form W–9,
Request for TaxpayerIdentification Num-
ber and Certification, and the existing
rules for soliciting taxpayer identification
numbers (TINs) are needed to minimize
the burden for payors to obtain TINs from
payees, what are the privacy concerns
with respect to TINs, and what are other
concerns regarding identifying payees.
5. How should the backup withholding
requirements for missing TINs under the
expanded new reporting requirements be
administered in order to minimize burden
on payors.
Interested parties are invited to
submit comments on this notice by
2010–29 I.R.B.83July 19, 2010

September 29, 2010. Written comments
should be submitted to: Internal Rev-
enue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice
2010–51), Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604,
Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044. Alternatively, comments may
be hand delivered between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday
to Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice
2010–51), Courier’s Desk, Internal
Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. Comments
may also be transmitted electronically
via the following e-mail address:
Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov.
Please include “Notice 2010–51” in
the subject line of any electronic
communications. All comments will
be available for public inspection and
copying.
The principal author of this notice is
Keith Brau of the Office of Associate
Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administra-
tion). For further information regarding
this notice, please contact Keith Brau at
(202) 622–4940 (not a toll-free call).
July 19, 2010842010–29 I.R.B.

Part IV. Items o
fGeneralInterest
Notice of Prop
osed
Rulemaking by
Cross-Refere
nce to
Temporary Re
gulations
Group Health
Plans and
Health Insur
ance Coverage
Rules Relat
ing to Status as
aGrandfath
ered Health Plan
under the P
atient Protection
and Afford
able Care Act
REG–11841
2–10
AGENCY: In
ternal Revenue Service
(IRS), Tr
easury.
ACTION: No
tice of proposed rulemaking
by cross-
reference to temporary regula-
tions.
SUMMARY:
Elsewhere in this issue of the
Bulletin
, the IRS is issuing temporary reg-
ulations
(T.D. 9489) under the provisions
of the Pa
tient Protection and Affordable
Care Act
(the Affordable Care Act) deal-
ing with
rulesrelatingtostatusasagrand-
fathere
d health plan. The IRS is issuing
the temp
orary regulations at the same time
that th
e Employee Benefits Security Ad-
minist
ration of the U.S. Department of La-
bor and
the Office of Consumer Informa-
tion an
d Insurance Oversight of the U.S.
Depart
ment of Health and Human Services
are is
suing substantially similar interim fi-
nal re
gulations with respect to group health
plans
and health insurance coverage of-
fered
in connection with a group health
plan u
nder the Employee Retirement In-
come
Security Act of 1974 and the Pub-
lic H
ealth Service Act. The temporary
regu
lations provide guidance to employ-
ers,
group health plans, and health insur-
ance
issuers providing group health insur-
anc
e coverage. The text of those tempo-
rar
y regulations also serves as the text of
the
se proposed regulations.
DAT
ES: Written or electronic comments
and
requests for a public hearing must be
rec
eived by September 15, 2010.
ADD
RESSES: Send submissions to:
CC:
PA:LPD:PR(REG–118412–10),
ro
om 5205, Internal Revenue Service,
P.O. Box 7604,
BenFranklinSta-
tion, Washing
ton, DC 20044. Sub-
missions may b
e hand-delivered to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG–118412–10),
Courier’s Des
k, Internal Revenue Ser-
vice, 1111 Co
nstitution Avenue, NW,
Washington D
C 20224. Alternatively,
taxpayers ma
y submit comments elec-
tronically v
ia the Federal eRulemaking
Portal atht
tp://www.regulations.gov(IRS
REG–118412
–10).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Concerning the regulations,
Karen Levin at 202–622–6080; concern-
ing submissions of comments or to request
a hearing, Regina Johnson, 202–622–7180
(not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork
Reduction Act
The collection of information contained
in this notice of proposed rulemaking has
been submitted to the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget for review in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the
collection of information should be sent to
theOffice of Management and Budget,
Attn: Desk Officer for the Department
of the Treasury, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC
20503, with copies to theInternal Rev-
enue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clear-
ance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP,
Washington, DC 20224. Comments on
the collection of information should be
received by August 16, 2010. Comments
are specifically requested concerning:
•Wheth
er the proposed collection of
infor
mation is necessary for the proper
perfo
rmance of the functions of the
Inte
rnal Revenue Service, including
whet
her the information will have
prac
tical utility;
•The a
ccuracy of the estimated burdens
asso
ciated with the proposed collec-
tion
of information (see the preamble
to th
e temporary regulations published
els
ewhere in this issue of the Bulletin);
•How t
o enhance the quality, utility, and
cla
rity of the information to be col-
lec
ted;
•How to minimiz
e the burden of com-
plying with th
e proposed collection of
information,
including the application
of automated c
ollection techniques or
other forms of
information technology;
and
•Estimates of c
apital or start-up costs
and costs of o
peration, maintenance,
and purchase
of services to provide in-
formation.
The collecti
ons of information are in
§54.9815–12
51T(a)(2) and (a)(3) (see
the tempora
ry regulations published else-
where in thi
s issue of the Bulletin). The
temporary r
egulations require any group
health plan
or group health insurance cov-
erage inten
ded to be a grandfathered health
plan to incl
ude in any description of plan
benefits p
rovided to participants or bene-
ficiaries
a statement that the plan or issuer
believes t
he plan or health insurance cov-
erage is a g
randfathered health plan under
section 1
251 of the Affordable Care Act.
The tempo
rary regulations provide model
language
for this purpose. The temporary
regulati
onsalsorequireanysuchplanor
issuer t
o maintain records documenting
the term
s of the plan or health insurance
coverag
e on March 23, 2010 and any other
documen
ts necessary to verify, explain, or
clarify
itsstatusasagrandfatheredhealth
plan. T
he likely respondents to the col-
lectio
ns of information requirements are
busine
ss or other for-profit institutions,
and non
profit institutions. Responses to
this co
llection of information are manda-
tory if
a plan or health insurance coverage
is int
ended to be a grandfathered health
plan u
nder the Affordable Care Act.
An age
ncy may not conduct or sponsor,
and a p
erson is not required to respond to, a
colle
ction of information unless it displays
avali
d control number assigned by the Of-
fice o
f Management and Budget.
Books
or records relating to a collection
of in
formation must be retained as long
as th
eir contents may become material in
the a
dministration of any internal revenue
law.
Generally tax returns and tax return
info
rmation are confidential, as required
by 26
U.S.C. 6103.
2010–29 I.R.B.85July 19, 2010

Background
The temporary regulations published
elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin add
§54.9815–1251T to the Miscellaneous Ex-
cise Tax Regulations. The proposed and
temporary regulationsare being published
as part of a joint rulemaking with the De-
partment of Labor and the Department
of Health and Human Services (the joint
rulemaking). The text of those temporary
regulations also serves as the text of these
proposed regulations. The preamble to
the temporary regulations explains the
temporary regulations and these proposed
regulations.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice
of proposed rulemaking is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in Executive
Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory as-
sessment is not required. It has also been
determined that section 553(b) of the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chap-
ter 5) does not apply to this proposed regu-
lation. It is hereby certified that the collec-
tions of information contained in this no-
tice of proposed rulemaking will not have
a significant impact on a substantial num-
ber of small entities. Accordingly, a regu-
latory flexibility analysis is not required.
The temporary regulations require any
group health plan or group health insur-
ance coverage intended to be a grand-
fathered health plan to include in any
description of plan benefits provided to
participants or beneficiaries a statement
that the plan or issuer believes the plan
or health insurance coverage is a grandfa-
thered health plan under section 1251 of
the Affordable Care Act. The temporary
regulations provide model language for
this purpose. This disclosure requirement
applies only when the plan or issuer is
otherwise distributing a description of
plan benefits. For group health plans
maintained by small entities, it is antici-
pated that the health insurance issuer will
prepare the description of plan benefits
in almost all cases. Thus, there will al-
most always be no burden of statement
preparation imposed on small business
entities. Because the distribution is not
required other than when a description
of plan benefits is otherwise provided,
the distribution requirement will not add
any burden to plans maintained by small
business entities. For this reason, the
information collection requirement of pro-
viding a statement, in descriptions of plan
benefits, that the plan is intended to be a
grandfathered health plan will not impose
a significant impact on a substantial num-
ber of small entities.
The temporary regulations also require
any plan or issuer intending the group
health plan or health insurance coverage to
be a grandfathered health plan to maintain
records documenting the terms of the plan
or health insurance coverage on March 23,
2010 and any other documents necessary
to verify, explain, or clarify its status as
a grandfathered health plan. Under the
temporary regulations, if a sponsor of a
group health plan switches to an insurance
policy under which none of its employ-
ees was covered on March 23, 2010, the
plan ceases to be a grandfathered health
plan. Thus, an insured plan can maintain
its status as a grandfathered health plan
only by renewing its contract with the
same health insurance issuer. Almost
all plans maintained by small business
entities are insured plans, and the issuer is
also required to satisfy this recordkeeping
requirement for the health insurance
coverage to remain a grandfathered health
plan. It is anticipated that the issuer
will satisfy this recordkeeping obligation
for almost all small businesses. For
this reason, this information collection
requirement will not impose a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
For further information and for analy-
ses relating to the joint rulemaking, see the
preamble to the joint rulemaking. Pursuant
to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue
Code, this regulation has been submitted
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for com-
ment on its impact on small business.
Comments and Requests for a Public
Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations, consideration
will be given to any written comments
(a signed original and eight (8) copies)
or electronic comments that are submitted
timely to the IRS. Comments are specifi-
cally requested on the clarity of the pro-
posed regulations and how they may be
made easier to understand. All comments
will be available for public inspection and
copying. A public hearing may be sched-
uled if requested in writing by a person
that timely submits written comments. If
a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the
date, time, and place for the hearing will
be published in theFederal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these pro-
posed regulations is Karen Levin, Office
of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief
Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government
Entities), IRS. The proposed regulations,
as well as the temporary regulations,
have been developed in coordination with
personnel from the U.S. Department of
Labor and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
*****
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 54 is pro-
posed to be amended as follows:
PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for
part 54 is amended by adding an entry in
numerical order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 54.9815–1251 also issued un-
der 26 U.S.C. 9833. * * *
Par. 2. Section 54.9815–1251 is added
to read as follows:
§54.9815–1251 Preservation of right to
maintain existing coverage.
[The text of proposed §54.9815–1251 is
the same as the text of §54.9815–1251T
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Bulletin].
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for
Services and Enforcement.
(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on June 14, 2010,
11:15 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register
for June 17, 2010, 75 F.R. 34571)
July 19, 2010862010–29 I.R.B.

Deletions From Cumulative
List of Organizations
Contributions to Which
are Deductible Under Section
170 of the Code
Announcement 2010–45
The Internal Revenue Service has re-
voked its determination that the organi-
zations listed below qualify as organiza-
tions described in sections 501(c)(3) and
170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
Generally, the Service will not disallow
deductions for contributions made to a
listed organization on or before the date
of announcement in the Internal Revenue
Bulletin that an organization no longer
qualifies. However, the Service is not
precluded from disallowing a deduction
for any contributions made after an or-
ganization ceases to qualify under section
170(c)(2) if the organization has not timely
filed a suit for declaratory judgment under
section 7428 and if the contributor (1) had
knowledge of the revocation of the ruling
or determination letter, (2) was aware that
such revocation was imminent, or (3) was
in part responsible for or was aware of the
activities or omissions of the organization
that brought about this revocation.
If on the other hand a suit for declara-
tory judgment has been timely filed, con-
tributions from individuals and organiza-
tions described in section 170(c)(2) that
are otherwise allowable will continue to
be deductible. Protection under section
7428(c) would begin on July 12, and would
end on the date the court first determines
that the organization is not described in
section 170(c)(2) as more particularly set
forth in section 7428(c)(1). For individual
contributors, the maximum deduction pro-
tected is $1,000, with a husband and wife
treated as one contributor. This benefit is
not extended to any individual, in whole
or in part, for the acts or omissions of the
organization that were the basis for revo-
cation.
Baby Boomers and Beyond, Inc.
Denham Springs, LA
Children’s Angelcare Aid International,
Inc.
San Diego, CA
Institute for Unpopular Culture
San Francisco, CA
Jolene’s Horse Rescue
Palmdale, CA
Military Order of the Cootie of the US
Tent # 20,
Wellston, OK
Rochester Hills Dance & Arts Society
Rochester Hills, MI
City Club
Dallas, TX
Four a Foundation an Integrated Auxiliary
of First Baptist Church
Garland, TX
Georgian Community Services Program,
Inc.
Morrow, GA
TARU Gardens, Inc
Charlottesville, VA
UTAH Citizens Alliance
Salt Lake City, UT
Notice of Disposition of
Declaratory Judgment
Proceedings under Section
7428
Announcement 2010–46
This announcement serves notice to
donors that on February 5, 2009, the
United States Tax Court entered a stipu-
lated decision that effective December 20,
2000, the organization listed below is not
recognized as an organization described in
section 501(c)(3), is not exempt from tax
under section 501(a), and is not eligible to
receive deductible charitable contributions
as an organization described in section
170(c)(2).
Douglas and Valerie Wood Charitable
Supporting Organization
Latrobe, PA
DPA Alliance Corporation
Provo, UT
After Bankruptcy Foundation, Inc.
Fishers, IN
America’s Faith Centered Education, Inc.
Sandy, UT
Airport Working Group of Orange County
Newport Beach, CA
Bear Soldier Industries
Bismarck, ND
Chadwell-Townsend Private Foundation
Bellbrook, OH
Golden Age Benefits Society
Westlake Village, CA
Jordan Ministries, Inc.
Dover, FL
Newton Family Foundation
West Jordan, UT
United American Housing & Education
Foundation
Houston, TX
2010–29 I.R.B.87July 19, 2010

Definition of Terms
Revenue rulings and revenue procedures
(hereinafter referred to as “rulings”) that
have an effect on previous rulings use the
following defined terms to describe the ef-
fect:
Amplifieddescribes a situation where
no change is being made in a prior pub-
lished position, but the prior position is be-
ingextendedtoapplytoavariationofthe
fact situation set forth therein. Thus, if
an earlier ruling held that a principle ap-
plied to A, and the new ruling holds that the
same principle also applies to B, the earlier
ruling is amplified. (Compare withmodi-
fied,below).
Clarifiedis used in those instances
where the language in a prior ruling is be-
ing made clear because the language has
caused, or may cause, some confusion.
It is not used where a position in a prior
ruling is being changed.
Distinguisheddescribes a situation
where a ruling mentions a previously pub-
lished ruling and points out an essential
difference between them.
Modifiedis used where the substance
of a previously published position is being
changed. Thus, if a prior ruling held that a
principle applied to A but not to B, and the
new ruling holds that it applies to both A
and B, the prior ruling is modified because
it corrects a published position. (Compare
withamplifiedandclarified, above).
Obsoleteddescribes a previously pub-
lished ruling that is not considered deter-
minative with respect to future transac-
tions. This term is most commonly used in
a ruling that lists previously published rul-
ings that are obsoleted because of changes
in laws or regulations. A ruling may also
be obsoleted because the substance has
been included in regulations subsequently
adopted.
Revokeddescribes situations where the
position in the previously published ruling
is not correct and the correct position is
beingstatedinanewruling.
Supersededdescribes a situation where
the new ruling does nothing more than re-
state the substance and situation of a previ-
ously published ruling (or rulings). Thus,
the term is used to republish under the
1986 Code and regulations the same po-
sition published under the 1939 Code and
regulations. The term is also used when
it is desired to republish in a single rul-
ing a series of situations, names, etc., that
were previously published over a period of
time in separate rulings. If the new rul-
ing does more than restate the substance
of a prior ruling, a combination of terms
is used. For example,modifiedandsu-
persededdescribes a situation where the
substance of a previously published ruling
is being changed in part and is continued
without change in part and it is desired to
restate the valid portion of the previously
published ruling in a new ruling that is self
contained. In this case, the previously pub-
lished ruling is first modified and then, as
modified, is superseded.
Supplementedis used in situations in
which a list, such as a list of the names of
countries, is published in a ruling and that
list is expanded by adding further names in
subsequent rulings. After the original rul-
ing has been supplemented several times, a
new ruling may be published that includes
the list in the original ruling and the ad-
ditions, and supersedes all prior rulings in
the series.
Suspendedis used in rare situations to
show that the previous published rulings
will not be applied pending some future
action such as the issuance of new or
amended regulations, the outcome of cases
in litigation, or the outcome of a Service
study.
Abbreviations
The fol
lowing abbreviations in current use
and for
merly used will appear in material
publis
hedintheBulletin.
A—Individual.
Acq.—A
cquiescence.
B—Individual.
BE—Beneficiary.
BK—Bank
.
B.T.A.—Board of Tax Appeals.
C—Individual.
C.B.—Cu
mulative Bulletin.
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations.
CI—City.
COOP—Coo
perative.
Ct.D.—Court Decision.
CY—County.
D—Decede
nt.
DC—Dummy Corporation.
DE—Donee.
Del. Order
—Delegation Order.
DISC—Domestic International Sales Corporation.
DR—Donor.
E—Estate.
EE—Employee.
E.O.—Executive Order.
ER—Emp
loyer.
ERISA—Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
EX—Executor.
F—Fiduc
iary.
FC—Foreign Country.
FICA—Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
FISC—Fo
reign International Sales Company.
FPH—Foreign Personal Holding Company.
F.R.—Federal Register.
FUTA—Fed
eral Unemployment Tax Act.
FX—Foreign corporation.
G.C.M.—Chief Counsel’s Memorandum.
GE—Grante
e.
GP—General Partner.
GR—Grantor.
IC—Insura
nce Company.
I.R.B.—Internal Revenue Bulletin.
LE—Lessee.
LP—Limited
Partner.
LR—Lessor.
M—Minor.
Nonacq.—No
nacquiescence.
O—Organization.
P—Parent Corporation.
PHC—Persona
l Holding Company.
PO—Possession of the U.S.
PR—Partner.
PRS—Pa
rtnership.
PTE—Prohibited Transaction Exemption.
Pub. L.—Public Law.
REIT—Re
al Estate Investment Trust.
Rev. Proc.—Revenue Procedure.
Rev. Rul.—Revenue Ruling.
S—Subsi
diary.
S.P.R.—Statement of Procedural Rules.
Stat.—Statutes at Large.
T—Target
Corporation.
T.C.—Tax Court.
T.D.—Treasury Decision.
TFE—Trans
feree.
TFR—Transferor.
T.I.R.—Technical Information Release.
TP—Taxpay
er.
TR—Trust.
TT—Trustee.
U.S.C.—Uni
ted States Code.
X—Corporation.
Y—Corporation.
Z—Corporat
ion.
July 19, 2010i2010–29 I.R.B.

Numerical Finding List
1
Bulletins 2010–27 through 2010–29
Announcements:
2010-43, 2010-27 I.R.B.42
2010-44, 2010-28 I.R.B.54
2010-45, 2010-29 I.R.B.87
2010-46, 2010-29 I.R.B.87
Notices:
2010-48, 2010-27 I.R.B.9
2010-49, 2010-27 I.R.B.10
2010-50, 2010-27 I.R.B.12
2010-51, 2010-29 I.R.B.83
Proposed Regulations:
REG-112841-10, 2010-27 I.R.B.41
REG-118412-10, 2010-29 I.R.B.85
Revenue Procedures:
2010-25, 2010-27 I.R.B.16
Revenue Rulings:
2010-18, 2010-27 I.R.B.1
Treasury Decisions:
9486, 2010-27 I.R.B.3
9487, 2010-28 I.R.B.48
9488, 2010-28 I.R.B.51
9489, 2010-29 I.R.B.55
1
A cumulative list of all revenue rulings, revenueprocedures, Treasury decisions, etc., publishedin Internal Revenue Bulletins 2010–1 through 2010–26 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin
2010–26, dated June 28, 2010.
2010–29 I.R.B.iiJuly 19, 2010

Finding List of Current Actions on
Previously Published Items
1
Bulletins 2010–27 through 2010–29
Revenue Procedures:
2007-44
Modified by
Notice 2010-48, 2010-27 I.R.B.9
2009-18
Obsoleted in part by
Rev. Proc. 2010-25, 2010-27 I.R.B.16
1
A cumulative list of current actions on previously published items in Internal Revenue Bulletins 2010–1 through 2010–26 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2010–26, dated June 28, 2010.
July 19, 2010iii2010–29 I.R.B.

INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN
The Introduction at the beginning of this issue describes the purpose and content of this publication. The weekly Internal Revenue
Bulletin is sold on a yearly subscription basis by the Superintendent of Documents. Current subscribers are notified by the Superin-
tendent of Documents when their subscriptions must be renewed.
CUMULATIVE BULLETINS
The contents of this weekly Bulletin are consolidated semiannually into a permanent, indexed, Cumulative Bulletin. These are
sold on a single copy basis andare notincluded as part of the subscription to the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Subscribers to the weekly
Bulletin are notified when copies of the Cumulative Bulletin are available. Certain issues of Cumulative Bulletins are out of print
and are not available. Persons desiring available Cumulative Bulletins, which are listed on the reverse, may purchase them from the
Superintendent of Documents.
ACCESS THE INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN ON THE INTERNET
You may view the Internal Revenue Bulletin on the Internet at www.irs.gov. Select Businesses. Under Businesses Topics, select
More Topics. Then select Internal Revenue Bulletins.
INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETINS ON CD-ROM
Internal Revenue Bulletins are available annually as part ofPublication 1796 (Tax Products CD-ROM). The CD-ROM can be
purchased from National Technical Information Service (NTIS) on the Internet at www.irs.gov/cdorders (discount for online orders)
or by calling 1-877-233-6767. The first release is available in mid-December and the final release is available in late January.
HOW TO ORDER
Check the publications and/or subscription(s) desired on the reverse, complete the order blank, enclose the proper remittance,
detach entire page, and mail to the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh PA, 15250–7954. Please allow two to
six weeks, plus mailing time, for delivery.
WE WELCOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE INTERNAL
REVENUE BULLETIN
If you have comments concerning the format or production of the Internal Revenue Bulletin or suggestions for improving it, we
would be pleased to hear from you. You can email us your suggestions or comments through the IRS Internet Home Page (www.irs.gov)
or write to the IRS Bulletin Unit, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224.
Internal Revenue Service
W
ashington,DC20224
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300