Rule2025-11613
Removal of Interpretive Bulletins Relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 1, 2025
Effective
September 2, 2025
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentEmployee Benefits Security Administration
Abstract
This DFR removes from the Code of Federal Regulations prospectively certain interpretive bulletins under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that the Department of Labor (DOL) believes are obsolete. The obsolete interpretive bulletins were published shortly after ERISA's enactment in 1974 to provide compliance assistance for employee benefit plans, plan sponsors and fiduciaries. Because of subsequent guidance issued by the DOL, and the effect of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, the DOL believes the interpretive bulletins are no longer needed, and if left on the books, add potential confusion and unnecessary complexity. Removing obsolete regulations eliminates the burden on the public of having to determine whether they need to comply with the regulations. This action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order 14192, titled Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025). This action improves the daily lives of the American people by reducing unnecessary, burdensome, and costly Federal regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28004-28007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11613]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
29 CFR Part 2509
RIN 1210-AC32
Removal of Interpretive Bulletins Relating to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Direct final rule (DFR); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This DFR removes from the Code of Federal Regulations
prospectively certain interpretive bulletins under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that the Department of Labor
(DOL) believes are obsolete. The obsolete interpretive bulletins were
published shortly after ERISA's enactment in 1974 to provide compliance
assistance for employee benefit plans, plan sponsors and fiduciaries.
Because of subsequent guidance issued by the DOL, and the effect of
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, the DOL believes the interpretive
bulletins are no longer needed, and if left on the books, add potential
confusion and unnecessary complexity. Removing obsolete regulations
eliminates the burden on the public of having to determine whether they
need to comply with the regulations. This action is being taken
pursuant to Executive Order 14192, titled Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025). This action improves the daily
lives of the American people by reducing unnecessary, burdensome, and
costly Federal regulations.
DATES: The final rule is effective September 2, 2025, unless
significant adverse comments are received by July 31, 2025. Significant
adverse comments are ones which oppose the rule and raise, alone or in
combination, a serious enough issue related to each of the independent
grounds for the rule that a substantive response is required. If
significant adverse comments are received, notification will be
published in the Federal Register before the effective date either
withdrawing the rule or issuing a new final rule which responds to
significant adverse comments.
ADDRESSES: The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
encourages interested persons to submit their comments on this request
for information online. You may submit comments, identified by RIN
1210-AC32, by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Room N-5655, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, Attn: Removal of
Interpretive Bulletins Relating to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 RIN 1210-AC32.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Regulatory Identifier Number RIN 1210-AC32 for this request. If you
submit comments online, do not submit paper copies. All comments
received will be posted without change on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
and <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa</a> and will be made available for
public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee
Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable or confidential
business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. Comments
are public records that are posted online as received and can be
retrieved by most internet search engines.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Wong, Office of Regulations and
Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, (202) 693-
8500. This is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Discussion
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a
comprehensive Federal law that sets minimum standards for most
voluntarily established employee benefit plans in private industry.
Title I of ERISA protects the interests of participants and their
beneficiaries in employee benefit plans by, among other things,
requiring that those individuals who manage plans (and other
fiduciaries) (1) meet certain standards of conduct, derived from the
common law of trusts and made applicable (with certain modifications)
to all fiduciaries, and (2) comply with certain ``prohibited
transactions'' restrictions described in the statute. Title II of
ERISA, which amended the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to parallel many
of the Title I provisions, contains standards that must be met by
employee retirement benefit plans in order to qualify for favorable tax
treatment. Under ERISA as originally enacted, the DOL and the U.S.
Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had overlapping
responsibility for administration of the parallel provisions of Title I
of ERISA and the Code.
Shortly after ERISA's enactment, the DOL published in the Federal
Register a number of Interpretive Bulletins to provide a concise and
ready reference to its interpretations of ERISA.\1\ Interpretive
Bulletin 75-2, codified at 29 CFR 2509.75-2, provided the DOL's
[[Page 28005]]
views on whether a ``party in interest'' \2\ has engaged in a
prohibited transaction with an employee benefit plan where the party in
interest has engaged in a transaction with an entity in which the plan
has invested.\3\ However, since publication of Interpretive Bulletin
75-2, the DOL has provided further guidance on prohibited transaction
issues in subregulatory guidance.\4\ The DOL believes the Interpretive
Bulletin no longer serves its intended purpose of providing a concise
and ready reference to the DOL's interpretations of ERISA's prohibited
transaction restrictions. The DOL therefore is removing this
Interpretive Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 FR 31598 (July 28, 1975), redesignated by 41 FR 1906
(Jan. 13, 1976).
\2\ ERISA section 3(14), 29 U.S.C. 1002(14).
\3\ 40 FR 31598. In 1986, the DOL revised Interpretive Bulletin
75-2 in connection with adoption of the DOL's regulation at 29 CFR
2510.3-101. See 51 FR 41280 (Nov. 13, 1986). In 1996, the
Interpretive Bulletin was further revised following the Supreme
Court decision in John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Harris
Trust & Savings Bank, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). See 61 FR 33847 (July 1,
1996).
\4\ See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 2006-09A (Dec. 19,
2006)(individual retirement account (IRA) investment in notes
offered by a corporation in which a son-in-law of the IRA owner is
the majority stockholder); 2006-01A (Jan. 6, 2006)(IRA investment in
a limited liability company that would purchase real estate and
lease it to an entity in which the IRA owner has a 68% ownership
interest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretive Bulletin 75-6, codified at 29 CFR 2509.75-6, related
to ERISA section 408(c)(2) and whether a plan could make an advance to
a fiduciary to cover expenses to be properly and actually incurred by
such person in performing duties with respect to the plan.\5\ However,
in 1977, the Department issued a final regulation under section
408(c)(2) at 29 CFR 2550.408c-2 that replaced Interpretive Bulletin 75-
6.\6\ Accordingly, the Department believes that Interpretive Bulletin
75-6 is no longer necessary. There is no reason to permit identical
standards for the same conduct to exist in two different parts of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Indeed, analyzing both regulations to
determine whether they are different or cover different conduct only
wastes time and resources that could be more productively employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 40 FR 31755 (July 29, 1975), redesignated by 41 FR 1906
(Jan. 13, 1976).
\6\ 42 FR 32389, 32390 (June 24, 1977) (``The attention of
interested parties is directed to the fact that regulation
2550.408c-2 replaces Interpretive Bulletin 75-6'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretive Bulletin 75-10, codified at 29 CFR 2509.75-10,
addressed ambiguity arising from the joint jurisdiction of the
Department and IRS with respect to parallel provisions in title I of
ERISA and the Code. Interpretive Bulletin 75-10 cross referenced
specific guidance documents issued by the IRS on the application of the
qualification requirements of the Code, as added or amended by ERISA,
and requirements of the provisions of parts 2 and 3 of Title I of ERISA
paralleling such qualification requirements. It stated that plans
complying with the IRS guidance documents would be considered by the
Department as satisfying the requirements of the parallel provisions of
Title I of ERISA.\7\ A few years later, the Reorganization Plan No. 4
of 1978 generally resolved issues related to joint interpretive
jurisdiction of the parallel provisions by, with certain exceptions,
assigning responsibility to one or the other agency.\8\ The DOL
therefore believes Interpretive Bulletin 75-10 is no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 41 FR 3289 (Jan. 22, 1976).
\8\ 43 FR 47713 (Oct. 17, 1978). Congress subsequently ratified
Reorganization Plan No. 4 in 1984. See Sec. 1, Public Law 98-532, 98
Stat. 2705 (Oct. 19, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons mentioned above, the DOL believes the interpretive
bulletins are no longer needed, and if left on the books, add potential
confusion and unnecessary complexity. Removing obsolete regulations
eliminates the burden on the public of having to determine whether they
need to comply with the regulations.
This direct final rule removes these obsolete interpretive
bulletins prospectively as of the effective date and has no effect on
their legal effectiveness prior to that date. Members of the public are
invited to provide comments on the DOL's reasoning and decision to
remove the obsolete interpretive bulletins from the Code of Federal
Regulations.
II. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted
by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this direct final rule was not submitted to OIRA for
review under E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
DOL reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates obsolete regulations and the
burden associated with imposing the obligation to determine
obsolescence on the public. Therefore, DOL has concluded that the
impacts of the rescission would not have a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that the
preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. DOL will transmit this
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This rescission imposes no new information or record-keeping
requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
[[Page 28006]]
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.
DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it would
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
E. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review
regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to
meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rescission meets
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2
U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them.
DOL examined this rescission according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rescission would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOL has determined that this rescission would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this rescission under the OMB
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
J. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154,
``Unleashing American Energy,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation,'' and Presidential Memorandum, ``Delivering
Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-
Living Crisis.'' This rescission is expected to be an Executive Order
14192 deregulatory action.
K. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOL will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2509
Employee benefit plans, Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
Fiduciaries, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends
part 2509 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
Subchapter A--General
PART 2509--INTERPRETIVE BULLEINS RELATING TO THE EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974
0
1. The authority citation for part 2509 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135. Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2003,
68 FR 5374 (Feb. 3, 2003). Section 2509.75-5 also issued under 29
U.S.C. 1002. Sec. 2509.95-1 also issued under sec. 625, Pub. L. 109-
280, 120 Stat. 780.
Sec. Sec. 2509.75-2, 2509.75-6, 2509.75-10 [Removed]
0
2. Sections 2509.75-2, 2509.75-6 and 2509.75-10 are removed.
[[Page 28007]]
Signed at Washington DC, this 18th day of June, 2025.
Timothy D. Hauser,
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2025-11613 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.