Request for Hearing — Matter of National Security — DOL

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

REQUEST FOR HEARING — MATTER OF NATIONAL
SECURITY
U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration
Agency

U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration

Docket

EBSA omnibus PRA notice — OMB Control Nos. 1210-0076, 1210-0094,
1210-0039, 1210-0090, 1210-0121

Federal Register

91 FR 7528 (Feb. 18, 2026); FR Doc. 2026-03145

RIN

See procedural-posture note.

Deadline

April 20, 2026

Procedural posture

PRA 60-day omnibus notice bundling five distinct information collections
under ERISA. Creates no statutory hearing right. Filing requests OIRA
meeting and preserves record for APA and PRA review.

Position

Support the ERISA participant-protection framework. Oppose OMB renewal of
the bundled package on the current record. Request OIRA meeting before
disposition.

Filed by

James Hunter Poole, Executive Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Obelisk
Tech Systems, Inc.

Date

April 19, 2026

1. Executive Summary
The Department proposes a bundled three-year extension of five distinct information collection
requests under ERISA: 1210-0076 (Plan Loans), 1210-0094 (PTE 85-68 Customer Notes), 12100039 (Summary Plan Description Requirements), 1210-0090 (Participant-Directed Account
Disclosures), and 1210-0121 (Electronic-Delivery Consent). Combined reported burden:
4,197,872 respondents; approximately 1,094,947,258 responses; 7,585,247 burden hours;
$313,530,487 operating cost. Bundling five collections of this magnitude into a single omnibus
notice suppresses per-collection analysis required under 5 CFR §1320.8(d), produces facially
implausible burden ratios on 1210-0039 (0.71 minutes per response) and 1210-0090 (1,678
responses per respondent per year), omits third-party recordkeeper burden entirely, and does not
reflect the technology-displacement effects of the 2002 electronic-safe-harbor regulation at 29
CFR §2520.104b-1(c) and the 2020 default-electronic-delivery rule at 29 CFR §2520.104b-31.
This filing is submitted because the posture of the docket fails elementary procedural tests on the
face of the notice. The requested procedural remedy is an OIRA meeting under Executive Order
12866 §6(b)(4) before disposition, republication or correction of the defective record items
identified in this filing, and preservation of all objections for downstream Administrative Procedure

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 1 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, Privacy Act, Federal Records Act, FOIA, and applicable agencyspecific review. The Loper Bright and Corner Post frameworks are preserved.

2. Doctrinal Frame
Power must move through valid process. An information collection, rulemaking, or tolerance
action that will govern federal regulatory authority cannot proceed on a record that fails
elementary procedural tests.
Procedural defects in this posture cascade across seven regimes. A Paperwork Reduction Act
failure under 44 U.S.C. §§3506–3508 and 5 CFR Part 1320 exposes downstream enforcement
to the public-protection defense at 44 U.S.C. §3512 and precludes penalizing nonresponse under
5 CFR §1320.5(a). An Administrative Procedure Act failure under 5 U.S.C. §§551(4)–(5), 553,
and 706(2)(D) exposes the rule to invalidation. A Federal Register Act publication failure under
44 U.S.C. §§1503, 1505, 1507, 1510 and 1 CFR chapter I renders the operative rule not valid
against persons without actual knowledge. A FOIA §552(a)(1) and §552(a)(2) publication failure
compounds that problem. A Federal Records Act failure under 44 U.S.C. §§3101, 3105, 3106 and
OMB Circular A-130 corrodes the administrative record that any §706 defense presupposes. An
OIRA prepublication failure under EO 12866 §§3, 4, 6, EO 14094, and the 2025 OMB interim
guidance implementing EO 14215 removes the centralized-review layer. An OMB Circular A-4
failure exposes the need determination to arbitrary-and-capricious review.
The 1 CFR chapter I architecture sits over all of it. Part 1 governs what is a "rule"; captions do not
control. Part 8 governs CFR codification traceability. Part 18 governs transmission and preamble
adequacy. Part 19 governs presidential routing where applicable. Part 22 governs notice-content
adequacy.
Post-Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), the agency's interpretation of
its organic statute no longer receives Chevron deference; a reviewing court applies the bestmeaning canon. Under Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), the
limitations period for facial APA challenge runs from first injury, not promulgation. Under Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), and
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891,
1907–08 (2020), post-hoc rationalizations cannot cure a defective record.

3. Institutional Exposure
The following items are publicly retrievable and tie the agency's current posture on this docket to
documented institutional findings. The agency cannot dispute them on the face of its own filings.
1210-0090 responses-per-respondent ratio anomaly.
EBSA reports 619,650 respondents and 1,039,819,787 responses for 1210-0090 —
approximately 1,678 responses per respondent per year. For participant-directed individual
account plans, the plausible response unit is the combination of automatic annual disclosures,

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 2 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

quarterly plan-fee disclosures, annual comparative chart, and event-driven pass-through
materials. A 1,678 count implies over 4 distinct disclosure events per plan per day on average —
facially implausible without disaggregation between event-driven and periodic disclosure counts.
Under 5 CFR §1320.5(d)(1)(iv) the methodology must be transparent enough for a member of the
public to test.
1210-0039 minutes-per-response ratio anomaly.
EBSA reports 3,214,973 respondents and 117,968,000 responses for 1210-0039 Summary Plan
Description compliance, with 1,397,000 burden hours — equal to 0.71 minutes per response. An
SPD/SMM/SMR cycle involves legal-counsel review under 29 CFR §2520.102-2, formatting
against style requirements, §2520.102-3 content requirements, translation where required,
distribution under §§2520.104b-1 through 104b-3, and record retention. A 0.71-minute-perresponse average cannot credibly capture any of those steps. The $88,872,000 operating-cost
line is likewise unsupported by a unit-cost derivation.
Third-party recordkeeper ecosystem not reflected.
ERISA disclosure compliance is overwhelmingly produced by third-party recordkeepers —
Fidelity, Vanguard, Empower, Schwab, Principal, Voya, T. Rowe Price, Alight, Transamerica —
and by retained ERISA counsel. Under 5 CFR §1320.8(a)(4), burden imposed on third parties
through a covered instrument must be counted. The five bundled ICRs do not disclose whether
third-party recordkeeper burden is captured; the ratios above suggest it is not.
Technology displacement.
The 2002 regulatory safe harbor at 29 CFR §2520.104b-1(c) permits electronic delivery with
affirmative consent. The Department's 2020 final rule at 29 CFR §2520.104b-31 permits default
electronic delivery with a limited opt-out. Uptake has materially changed the burden profile for
1210-0039, 1210-0090, and 1210-0121. Under 5 CFR §1320.5(d)(2) the agency must minimize
burden through technology. Estimates that do not reflect electronic-delivery displacement doublecount paper burden.
1210-0094 single-respondent necessity question.
EBSA reports 1 respondent and 1 response per year for the PTE 85-68 collection. A collection
with a single respondent per year raises the necessity question at 5 CFR §1320.5(d)(1)(i). If only
one plan in the United States operates under PTE 85-68 in a given year, OMB should consider
whether the collection is necessary or whether the exemption itself warrants reassessment.

4. Internal Inconsistencies and Notice Defects
The following inconsistencies and omissions are independently preserved as record defects
regardless of the institutional-exposure findings above.
Bundled omnibus notice structurally forecloses per-collection public comment.
No per-collection certification under 5 CFR §1320.9 disclosed for each of the five ICRs.

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 3 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

1210-0090 and 1210-0039 ratios facially implausible without methodology disclosure.
No technology-displacement reconciliation for the 2020 default-electronic rule.
Operating-cost line items ($221M, $88M) without unit-cost derivation.
No RFA analysis disaggregated for small plan sponsors and small service providers.

5. Procedural Invalidity Analysis
A. Administrative Procedure Act — 5 U.S.C. §§551, 553, 706
Governing rule.
APA §551(4)–(5) classifies rules by function, not caption. §553 governs notice-and-comment.
§706(2)(A), (C), (D) sets the judicial-review standards.
Record weakness.
By bundling five distinct information collections into a single omnibus notice, EBSA has structured
the filing to foreclose per-collection analysis. Under APA §553(b) the public must be given an
opportunity to comment on each proposed action. A comment addressing the 1210-0090
responses-per-respondent anomaly cannot be severed from a comment addressing the 12100094 single-respondent PTE without creating administrative-record ambiguity.
Why it matters.
Bundling is a PRA-evasion pattern that converts five separate procedural duties into one
boilerplate recitation.
Remedy consequence.
Unbundle the five ICRs; publish five separate supporting statements with independent
certification; reopen comment period on each.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act — 44 U.S.C. §§3506–3508, 3512; 5 CFR Part 1320
Governing rule.
5 CFR §1320.8(d) requires agency evaluation of necessity, practical utility, accuracy of burden,
and burden minimization. §1320.9 requires certification. §1320.5(d)(1)(iv) requires methodology
disclosure. §1320.8(a)(4) requires counting third-party burden. 44 U.S.C. §3512 provides the
public-protection defense against penalties for nonresponse to defective collections.
Record weakness.
Each of the five collections must be independently evaluated under 5 CFR §1320.8(d)(1). The
1210-0090 ratio of approximately 1,678 responses per respondent per year and the 1210-0039
ratio of 0.71 minutes per response are facially implausible. Third-party recordkeeper burden,
central to how ERISA disclosures are actually produced, is not addressed under 5 CFR
§1320.8(a)(4). Technology-displacement effects of the 2002 safe harbor and the 2020 defaultelectronic rule are not reflected in the per-collection estimates, violating 5 CFR §1320.5(d)(2).

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 4 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

Why it matters.
A bundle of collections covering 4.2 million respondents and more than a billion annual responses
cannot be certified on a record the public cannot test.
Remedy consequence.
Publish disaggregated methodology; count third-party recordkeeper burden; recompute estimates
to reflect electronic-delivery uptake.

C. Federal Register Act and 1 CFR chapter I architecture — 44 U.S.C. §§1503,
1505, 1507, 1510; 1 CFR Parts 1, 8, 18, 22
Governing rule.
§1503 governs filing; §1505 publication; §1507 validity-against-the-public; §1510 the CFR. 1 CFR
§22.5 requires authority-citation and notice-content adequacy; §18.12 requires a reader-oriented
preamble; §18.11 requires verifiable signing authority; §8.7 requires CFR codification traceability.
Record weakness.
The notice does not satisfy §22.5 authority-citation specificity, §18.12 reader-oriented preamble,
or §18.11 delegation-trail identification. Under §1507 a public reader cannot determine from the
face of the notice what rule is being administered.
Why it matters.
Constructive notice is the foundation of the Federal Register Act. Ambiguity defeats the regime.
Remedy consequence.
Republish with §22.5 specificity, §18.11 delegation trail, and §18.12-compliant preamble.

D. Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-108 — 5 U.S.C. §552a
Governing rule.
§552a(e)(4) requires Federal Register publication of SORNs. §552a(e)(11) requires 30-day
comment on new or materially changed routine uses. §552a(e)(10) requires safeguards. A-108
governs timing and content of SORN publication.
Record weakness.
To the extent the collection or rule touches records about individuals, the notice does not
document SORN crosswalk, routine-use analysis, or safeguards for the record lifecycle.
Why it matters.
Privacy Act §552a(g) civil-remedy and §552a(i) criminal penalties are preserved against any
disclosure through undocumented routine uses.
Remedy consequence.
Identify governing SORN; confirm A-108 compliance for any change; document §552a(e)(10)
safeguards.

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 5 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

E. Federal Records Act and OMB Circular A-130 — 44 U.S.C. §§3101, 3105, 3106
Governing rule.
§3101 requires records creation and preservation. §3105 requires records documenting essential
transactions. A-130 governs information-lifecycle management.
Record weakness.
The notice does not document retention, disposal, or preservation posture for records generated
by or underlying this action.
Why it matters.
A §706 defense requires a reconstructible administrative record; preservation failure compounds
every other procedural defect.
Remedy consequence.
Document retention schedule, chain-of-custody, and A-130 lifecycle commitments on the record.

F. FOIA publication obligations — 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(1) and (a)(2)
Governing rule.
§552(a)(1) requires Federal Register publication of substantive rules of general applicability.
§552(a)(2) requires reading-room availability of final opinions, policy statements, and staff
manuals.
Record weakness.
Operative criteria administered through internal staff guidance not fully published in either
§552(a)(1) or §552(a)(2) form cannot be validly applied against persons without actual and timely
notice.
Why it matters.
§552(a)(1) provides that a person cannot be required to comply with a matter of general
applicability not published unless the person has actual and timely notice.
Remedy consequence.
Publish operative criteria or make them available in the §552(a)(2) reading room with effectivedate notice.

G. OIRA review — EO 12866, EO 14094, 2025 OMB interim guidance, OMB Circular
A-4
Governing rule.
EO 12866 §§3, 4, 6 establish OIRA prepublication review. EO 14094 modernizes. The 2025 OMB
interim guidance implementing EO 14215 extends prepublication submission expectations.
Circular A-4 establishes the need-and-alternatives analytical standard.
Record weakness.

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 6 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

No significance determination, no A-4 analysis, and no OIRA prepublication submission is
disclosed on the record.
Why it matters.
Centralized review is not optional for significance-warranting actions under the 2025 OMB
guidance.
Remedy consequence.
OIRA meeting under §6(b)(4); publish significance determination and A-4 analysis.

H. Agency-specific ERISA layer — 29 U.S.C. §§1001 et seq.; 29 CFR §§2520.102,
2520.104b
Governing rule.
ERISA §§102, 104, 105 govern participant disclosures. 29 CFR §§2520.102-2, 2520.102-3,
2520.104b-1, 2520.104b-31 implement content, formatting, and delivery requirements.
Record weakness.
The bundled notice does not identify which regulatory section governs each of the five collections,
does not reconcile estimates with the 2020 default-electronic rule, and does not disaggregate
burden by plan size.
Why it matters.
A $221M and $88M operating-cost line cannot be certified without regulatory traceability.
Remedy consequence.
Publish regulatory-section-by-collection crosswalk; reconcile with 2020 rule; disaggregate by plan
size.

6. Docket-Specific Defects Table
#

Defect / Hook

Authority

Why It Matters

Requested Remedy

1

Bundled omnibus filing
structurally forecloses percollection public comment

5 CFR §1320.8(d);
APA §553(b); 1 CFR
§18.2

Per-collection
certification not
possible under
bundled recitation

Unbundle into five
separate supporting
statements with
independent
certification

2

1210-0090 ratio of ~1,678
responses per respondent per
year facially implausible

5 CFR
§1320.5(d)(1)(iv); 44
U.S.C. §3516 note

Methodology not
testable; IQA violation

Publish
disaggregated
methodology
distinguishing eventdriven from periodic
disclosures

3

1210-0039 ratio of 0.71 minutes
per response facially
implausible

5 CFR
§1320.5(d)(1)(iv)

SPD/SMM/SMR cycle
cannot be produced in
43 seconds

Publish methodology
with task-level
decomposition and
wage-rate source

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 7 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

#

Defect / Hook

Authority

Why It Matters

Requested Remedy

4

Third-party recordkeeper
burden (Fidelity, Vanguard,
Empower, Schwab, Principal,
Voya, T. Rowe Price, Alight,
Transamerica) not counted

5 CFR §1320.8(a)(4)

Systematic burden
understatement

Capture third-party
burden; disaggregate
from plan-sponsor
internal burden

5

Technology displacement from
2002 safe harbor (29 CFR
§2520.104b-1(c)) and 2020
default-electronic rule
(§2520.104b-31) not reflected

5 CFR §1320.5(d)(2)

Double-counted paper
burden

Recompute estimates
to reflect electronicdelivery uptake

6

$221M operating cost for 12100090 and $88M for 1210-0039
without unit-cost derivation

44 U.S.C. §3516
note; IQA

Record inadequacy

Publish unit-cost
derivations

7

No RFA analysis disaggregated
by plan size or small service
provider

5 U.S.C. §§603–605

Small-plan-sponsor
variation masked

Disaggregate by plan
size; publish §605(b)
certification if
appropriate

8

No OIRA prepublication record
for package of this magnitude

EO 12866 §3(f), §6;
2025 OMB interim
guidance

Centralized review
bypassed for 4.2M
respondents and >1B
responses

Submit to OIRA;
publish significance
determination; grant
§6(b)(4) meeting

9

1210-0094 single-respondent
PTE raises necessity question

5 CFR
§1320.5(d)(1)(i)

PTE itself may warrant
reassessment

Evaluate continued
necessity of PTE 8568 collection
independently

10

No cumulative-burden analysis
across the five bundled ICRs

44 U.S.C.
§3506(c)(3)(I)

Cross-collection
duplication not
eliminated

Publish cumulativeburden analysis

7. Ready-to-File Short Version (regulations.gov companion text)
The text below is the ready-to-file short version for the regulations.gov comment field. It preserves
the hearing-request title and the national-security framing, states the principal procedural defects,
and requests relief. Character count is under the 4,800 regulations.gov target.
REQUEST FOR HEARING — MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY
Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. files this submission to the administrative record
for EBSA omnibus PRA notice — OMB Control Nos. 1210-0076, 1210-0094, 12100039, 1210-0090, 1210-0121 (91 FR 7528 (Feb. 18, 2026); FR Doc. 2026-03145).
Obelisk requests an OIRA meeting under EO 12866 §6(b)(4), opposes agency
disposition on the current record, and preserves all objections for
downstream review under APA 5 U.S.C. §706 and PRA 44 U.S.C. §3512.
The Department bundled five distinct ERISA ICRs (1210-0076, 1210-0094, 12100039, 1210-0090, 1210-0121) into a single omnibus notice covering 4.2M
respondents, >1B annual responses, 7.6M burden hours, and $313M operating

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 8 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

cost. 1210-0090 reports ~1,678 responses per respondent per year; 1210-0039
reports 0.71 minutes per response. Both ratios are facially implausible
without methodology disclosure. Third-party recordkeeper burden not counted.
2002 electronic safe harbor and 2020 default-electronic rule technology
displacement not reflected.
Power must move through valid process. The current posture fails that test on
the face of the notice.
Relief requested. (1) OIRA §6(b)(4) meeting; (2) disposition held pending
disclosure of missing record materials; (3) republication or correction as
appropriate to the procedural posture; (4) preservation of all objections for
downstream APA, PRA, Privacy Act, FOIA, and FRA review.
All objections preserved under APA 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), (C), (D); PRA 44
U.S.C. §3512; Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024);
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).
James Hunter Poole
Executive Chairman & CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc.
CAGE 9S0L8 · UEI U34MSJ6A6413 · SEC EDGAR CIK 0002090527
Date: April 19, 2026

8. Relief Requested
1. Hold an OIRA meeting with Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. under Executive Order 12866 §6(b)(4)
before disposition of this docket.
2. Hold agency disposition pending disclosure of missing record materials identified in §4 (Internal
Inconsistencies) and §6 (Defects Table).
3. Publish the supporting statement, burden model, and per-task assumptions in a form the public
can test clause by clause, consistent with 5 CFR §1320.5(d)(1)(iv) and the Information Quality
Act at 44 U.S.C. §3516 note.
4. Identify the governing §1320.9 certifying official or equivalent signing authority with delegation
citation.
5. Document OIRA prepublication review consistent with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
14094, and the 2025 OMB interim guidance implementing Executive Order 14215.
6. Publish an OMB Circular A-4 need-and-alternatives analysis appropriate to the magnitude of
the action.
7. Unbundle the five ICRs into five separate supporting statements with independent §1320.9
certification.

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 9 of 10

Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · DOL · Request for Hearing

8. Publish methodology reconciling the 1210-0090 and 1210-0039 ratios with disaggregated
event-driven vs. periodic counts.
9. Capture third-party recordkeeper burden (Fidelity, Vanguard, Empower, Schwab, Principal,
Voya, T. Rowe Price, Alight, Transamerica) under 5 CFR §1320.8(a)(4).
10. Recompute all estimates to reflect 2002 safe-harbor and 2020 default-electronic-delivery
uptake.
11. Evaluate continued necessity of the 1210-0094 single-respondent PTE 85-68 collection
independently.
12. Disaggregate burden by plan size; publish RFA analysis or §605(b) certification.
13. Reopen the public comment period for sixty days after the missing supporting materials are
published, to permit meaningful public participation consistent with APA §553(b)(4) principles.
14. Preserve all objections under APA 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), (C), and (D); PRA 44 U.S.C. §3512;
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024); Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of
Governors, 603 U.S. ___ (2024); Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983); and Department of Homeland Security v.
Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020).

Respectfully submitted,
James Hunter Poole
Executive Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc.
875 Helicopter Road, Thomasville, Thomas County, Georgia 31757
CAGE 9S0L8 · UEI U34MSJ6A6413 · SEC EDGAR CIK 0002090527
DTIC Accession AD1348980 · BIS SNAP-R CIN S745686
HUBZone-certified · ITAR-registered · Delaware C-Corporation

Date: April 19, 2026

Submitted April 19, 2026 · James Hunter Poole, CEO, Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc. · Page 10 of 10