The Department of Labor\u2019s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) tried to play cleanup with the rulebook and instead found out that sometimes the \u201cold\u201d rules are still needed. After floating the idea of removing certain safe harbors \u2014 including guidance on selecting annuity providers and the definition of plan assets \u2014 EBSA has now backed off after receiving significant adverse comments.<\/p>\n
The Attempt to Simplify<\/p>\n
Back on July 1, EBSA published a direct final rule to wipe away a 2008 regulation that offered fiduciary safe harbor protections for selecting annuity providers for 401(k) benefit distributions. The thinking was that this rule had become redundant. After all, Congress already amended ERISA in 2019 through the SECURE Act to create a new statutory safe harbor for the same activity.<\/p>\n
The DOL reasoned that the old regulatory safe harbor might actually be more confusing than helpful \u2014 what they called a \u201ctrap for the unwary.\u201d The message was clear: Why keep two rules on the books when one streamlined statute should do the job?<\/p>\n
But as is often the case in the retirement plan space, what regulators think is unnecessary can be vital to practitioners.<\/p>\n
Industry Pushback<\/p>\n
The comment period produced significant objections. Groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) argued that the old regulatory safe harbor still matters. Why? Because the 2008 regulation covers both the provider and the contract selection. The SECURE Act\u2019s safe harbor, by contrast, is narrower \u2014 it only applies to selecting the insurer.<\/p>\n
As Robert Richter from the American Retirement Association pointed out, the SECURE Act safe harbor \u201cisn\u2019t as broad in scope as the regulatory safe harbor.\u201d In other words, removing the old rule would have stripped fiduciaries of a wider protective umbrella.<\/p>\n
The IRI put it bluntly: the regulatory safe harbor doesn\u2019t conflict with the statutory one \u2014 it complements it. Together, they give plan fiduciaries more confidence when navigating annuity distribution options, an area already fraught with complexity and second-guessing.<\/p>\n
Plan Assets and General Accounts<\/p>\n
The other rule EBSA tried to toss concerned the definition of \u201cplan assets\u201d as it relates to insurance company general accounts. The DOL thought the guidance was outdated since it only applies to insurance contracts issued before 1999. Industry players said otherwise.<\/p>\n
The Chamber of Commerce reminded the Department that many insurers and plan sponsors still rely on that safe harbor today. Some of those pre-1999 contracts are still in force and may be for years to come. Without the safe harbor, there could be real uncertainty over whether assets in an<\/p>\n
insurer\u2019s general account are ERISA plan assets \u2014 a classification that could trigger massive compliance headaches.<\/p>\n
The Chamber\u2019s point was simple: the regulation was designed with durability in mind. It\u2019s not obsolete if people are still relying on it. And as long as those contracts exist, the safe harbor still serves a purpose.<\/p>\n
Lessons Learned<\/p>\n
What\u2019s the takeaway? Regulators often want to streamline, simplify, and sweep away \u201cold\u201d rules. But in the retirement plan world, old rules have a way of sticking around for a reason. Plan fiduciaries crave certainty, not fewer pages in the Code of Federal Regulations.<\/p>\n
The DOL may have thought it was clearing clutter, but in reality, it was removing tools that practitioners still need. The retirement plan system is already complex \u2014 stripping out guidance that has provided clarity for nearly two decades doesn\u2019t make life easier. It just shifts the risk back onto plan sponsors and fiduciaries.<\/p>\n
So EBSA blinked, and rightly so. The safe harbors live another day, and fiduciaries continue to have both belts and suspenders when it comes to annuity selection and insurance general account treatment.<\/p>\n
And if you\u2019ve been in this business long enough, you know one thing: in retirement plans, more protection is always better than less.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Department of Labor\u2019s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) tried to play cleanup with the rulebook and instead found out that sometimes the \u201cold\u201d rules are still needed. After floating the idea of removing certain safe harbors \u2014 including guidance … Continue reading