What Is a DOL Field Assistance Bulletin for a 401(k) Plan?

A Field Assistance Bulletin can change how EBSA investigates or enforces an ERISA issue without changing ERISA itself. That distinction is the key to reading these documents correctly.^[1]

DOL describes Field Assistance Bulletins, or FABs, as guidance written by the Office of Regulations and Interpretations to enforcement leadership in response to questions that arise in field operations.^[1]

They can do two materially different jobs:

1. explain how DOL reads an existing statute or regulation
2. announce circumstances in which EBSA will temporarily withhold a defined enforcement response.^[1][2][4]

Neither job turns a memorandum into a new statute.

A plan should therefore ask three separate questions:

What does the law require?

How does DOL interpret that requirement?

What does EBSA say it will enforce right now?

A FAB can answer the second or third.

Sometimes both.

Why FABs Matter to 401(k) Plans

Some of the most practical DOL guidance on 401(k) administration has appeared in FABs.

Examples include:

• allocation of plan expenses among participant accounts^[9]
• directed-trustee responsibilities^[8]
• ERISA fidelity bonding^[7]
• participant-level fee disclosure^[6]
• missing-participant distributions^[4][10]
• 2026 pension benefit statement delivery.^[2]

These are not obscure academic questions.

They affect:

• what appears on participant disclosures
• what a trustee may do with an improper direction
• who must be bonded
• which participant can bear a particular fee
• where a missing participant's money can be sent
• whether a plan administrator faces near-term EBSA enforcement.

Ignoring FABs can therefore produce bad administration.

Treating them as if they were regulations can produce a different kind of error.

Start With the Document's Addressee

A typical FAB is a memorandum to:

• Director of Enforcement
• Regional Directors
• EBSA Office of Enforcement.^[1][2][3][4]

That tells you what the instrument is designed to do.

It gives the agency's enforcement personnel:

• interpretation
• implementation direction
• enforcement policy
• answers to recurring field questions.

This differs from an advisory opinion, which is issued in response to a request involving identified parties and facts.

INV-175 covers that distinction.

A FAB starts with the agency's field problem.

Not one applicant's reliance request.

A FAB Is Not a Regulation

ERISA and its implementing regulations establish the underlying legal framework.

A FAB does not rewrite statutory text.

It also does not insert new words into the Code of Federal Regulations.

That matters when the bulletin and an underlying rule perform different jobs.

Consider FAB 2026-02.

The statutory paper-statement mandate applies for plan years that start after 2025.^[2]

DOL's amendments to its electronic-disclosure safe harbors were still in proposed-rule form when the bulletin was issued.^[2][11]

The FAB did not turn the proposal into final regulation.

Instead, it announced how EBSA would exercise enforcement discretion during the gap.^[2]

Those are fundamentally different legal events.

A FAB Is Not a Prohibited-Transaction Exemption

Suppose a fiduciary transaction violates ERISA Section 406.

A FAB discussing the subject does not create relief merely because DOL personnel are told how to approach enforcement.

Valid prohibited-transaction relief comes from:

• statute
• class exemption
• individual exemption
• other legally applicable exemptive authority.

INV-174 covers individual exemptions.

The distinction is important because:

nonenforcement ≠ exemption.

An exemption changes whether a transaction is legally prohibited within its conditions.

An enforcement policy addresses what the agency says it will pursue.

Interpretive FABs and Enforcement-Relief FABs Should Be Read Differently

Not every bulletin contains a nonenforcement promise.

Interpretive FAB

Primary job:

explain the Department's interpretation of existing law.

Examples:

• FAB 2004-03 on directed trustees^[8]
• FAB 2008-04 on fidelity bonding^[7]
• FAB 2003-03 on expense allocation.^[9]

Temporary enforcement-policy FAB

Primary job:

state the conditions under which EBSA will decline a defined enforcement response.

Examples:

• FAB 2025-01 on small missing-participant payments to state funds^[4]
• FAB 2026-02 on paper pension benefit statements.^[2]

A plan should identify which type it is reading before asking:

"Can we rely on this?"

The answer is different.

Interpretive Guidance Explains the Rule DOL Thinks It Is Enforcing

FAB 2004-03 is a good example.

It addresses the responsibilities of a directed trustee under ERISA Section 403(a).^[8]

The bulletin explains DOL's view that a directed trustee:

• remains an ERISA fiduciary
• generally follows proper directions from a named fiduciary
• must review relevant plan documents
• may not follow a direction it knows or should know violates plan terms or ERISA
• does not independently duplicate every prudence judgment of the directing fiduciary.^[8]

The statute supplies the fiduciary framework.

The FAB supplies DOL's field interpretation.

That interpretation can be very important to:

• trustee contracts
• committee procedures
• investigations
• litigation analysis.

But the memorandum did not amend Section 403.

Temporary Enforcement Relief Has a Narrower Question

When a FAB announces nonenforcement, ask:

Exactly what violation does DOL say it will not pursue, against whom, for how long, and under what conditions?

Do not stop at:

"DOL gave relief."

A temporary policy may be limited by:

• specific ERISA section
• particular plan type
• transaction size
• participant category
• good-faith standard
• notice requirement
• expiration event.

FAB 2025-01 shows why every one of those details matters.^[4]

FAB 2026-02 Is the Clearest Current 401(k) Example

SECURE 2.0 added a paper-statement requirement to ERISA Section 105(a)(2).^[2]

For individual account plans, the statute generally requires at least one pension benefit statement for a calendar year to be furnished on paper, subject to statutory exceptions.^[2]

The requirement applies for plan years beginning after:

December 31, 2025.^[2]

DOL proposed amendments to its electronic-disclosure safe harbors on February 25, 2026.^[11]

But as of this article's August 28, 2026 review, the rulemaking remains at the proposed-rule stage.^[11]

That created an implementation gap:

statute effective + existing electronic-delivery rules + new rule not final.

FAB 2026-02 addresses that gap.^[2]

The FAB Did Not Delay the Paper Requirement

This is the first mistake to avoid.

FAB 2026-02 did not say:

"The statutory requirement is postponed until regulations are final."

Instead, DOL announced interim enforcement treatment while plans navigate the new statute and unfinished rulemaking.^[2]

That difference affects how a plan writes its compliance memo.

Wrong:

"Paper statements are not legally required yet."

Better:

"The statutory requirement is effective; EBSA has announced temporary enforcement treatment for specified good-faith compliance approaches while final implementing guidance is pending."

Words matter because the legal posture is different.

FAB 2026-02 Provides Two Good-Faith Routes

Until DOL completes the rulemaking or supplies superseding administrative direction, EBSA says it will not take enforcement action against administrators acting in good faith under either of two reasonable readings:^[2]

1. the provisions set out in the February 2026 proposed rule
2. the new paper-statement subsection of ERISA Section 105 itself.

The bulletin gives the existing disclosure regulation as an example of a possible reasonable approach under the statutory route.^[2]

This is intentionally flexible.

It is not:

"Anything goes until the final rule."

The interpretation still must be:

• reasonable
• good faith.

Why a 2026 Calendar-Year 401(k) Cares

Participant-directed individual account plans generally furnish quarterly benefit statements.^[2]

For a calendar-year plan, the new paper-statement mandate is already relevant during 2026.

The operational question is not theoretical.

A plan administrator has to decide:

• which statement will satisfy the paper requirement
• whether an applicable statutory exception exists
• which electronic safe-harbor approach is being used
• how the plan documents its good-faith interpretation
• how it will change operations when final regulations arrive.

INV-072 covers the benefit statement itself.

INV-176 addresses why the FAB matters to enforcement.

The Proposal Is Still a Proposal

The February 25, 2026 Federal Register document is expressly an:

NPRM — notice of proposed rulemaking.^[11]

It proposes changes involving:

• paper initial notice for specified new participants/beneficiaries under the 2002 safe harbor
• election mechanics
• required information on paper statements
• electronic delivery options
• fee restrictions.^[2][11]

FAB 2026-02 permits a good-faith reading of those proposed provisions to serve as one route to temporary enforcement treatment.^[2]

That does not make the NPRM codified law.

A plan should not rewrite its policy manual:

"29 CFR now says..."

until the CFR actually changes.

The Duration Clause Is Part of the Relief

FAB 2026-02 ties the temporary enforcement policy to a future event.

It continues until DOL replaces the transition posture through a completed rule or other applicable administrative direction.^[2]

That means a compliance team cannot file the 2026 FAB under:

permanent policy.

It belongs under:

transition rule — monitor for replacement.

A final regulation could:

• preserve the approach
• narrow it
• add conditions
• change timing.

The monitoring obligation is operational, not academic.

FAB 2025-01 Shows an Even More Conditional Policy

FAB 2025-01 concerns retirement benefits owed to missing participants or beneficiaries in:

ongoing pension plans.^[4]

It allows a specific EBSA nonenforcement position when a fiduciary voluntarily transfers a small benefit to an eligible state unclaimed-property fund.

The present value of the person's nonforfeitable accrued benefit must be:

$1,000 or less.^[4]

That dollar limit is central.

A plan cannot turn the policy into a general missing-participant destination for any account size.

The 2025 Policy Requires a Prudent Missing-Participant Program

The plan fiduciary must have implemented a prudent program to locate the missing person consistent with DOL's best-practices guidance and still be unable to locate the participant or beneficiary.^[4]

That blocks a dangerous shortcut.

The plan cannot say:

"Mail came back, so we sent the money to the state."

The transfer option sits after a prudent search.

Not instead of one.

The State Is Not Arbitrary

FAB 2025-01 directs the fiduciary to use the eligible state fund for the state of the person's:

last known address.^[4]

That choice ties the funds to a location where the participant is more likely to search.

It also prevents a plan from selecting whichever state program is operationally easiest without regard to the participant.

Convenience does not control the destination.

"Eligible State Fund" Has Real Conditions

The 2025 bulletin defines an eligible state fund using multiple participant-protection conditions.^[4]

Among them, the state program must:

• act as custodian for affected owners and heirs
• allow claims in perpetuity
• return at least 100% of the transferred amount rather than reduce it by fees
• maintain a searchable website
• support electronic claims
• allow inquiry by mail, email and telephone
• participate in specified national missing-property infrastructure
• streamline small claims
• perform recurring address searches above the stated amount
• permit direct plan payment to a reappearing participant with state reimbursement
• participate in the identified clearinghouse structure.^[4]

This is not generic:

state escheat is acceptable.

The state program has to satisfy the bulletin.

A State Representation Can Matter

Absent actual knowledge to the contrary, the fiduciary may rely on a representation from the appropriate state official that the fund meets the FAB's stated conditions.^[4]

That helps with operational diligence.

The plan does not necessarily need to independently audit the state's entire unclaimed-property system.

But the reliance is not blind if the plan actually knows a condition is false.

The familiar ERISA theme returns:

reasonable reliance still depends on facts.

The 2025 Relief Is About Specific Section 404(a) Enforcement

The operative paragraph says DOL will not pursue violations under:

ERISA Section 404(a)

for the covered voluntary transfer when the conditions are met.^[4]

That scope is narrower than:

"DOL will never bring any case about this participant."

The bulletin expressly preserves other issues.

That is why the legal-provision line must be read closely.

Recordkeeping Exposure Remains

FAB 2025-01 says the memorandum does not preclude DOL from pursuing violations under ERISA Sections:

• 107
• 209
• 404

for failure to maintain records.^[4]

That means a plan cannot cure poor participant records by moving the money to a state fund.

If deficient records caused the person to become lost, the transfer policy does not erase that failure.

The nonenforcement promise addresses the defined transfer decision.

Not every historical administrative problem.

Rights of Other Parties Remain Too

FAB 2025-01 expressly states that the memorandum:

does not affect the rights of other parties.^[4]

That sentence captures the difference between agency enforcement policy and a legal immunity rule.

If a participant, beneficiary or another party has rights under applicable law, the FAB does not automatically extinguish them.

This is why a plan should never translate:

"DOL will not pursue this violation"

into:

"Nobody can sue us."

Those are different propositions.

Ongoing Plan vs. Terminated Plan Is a Critical Distinction

FAB 2025-01 is specifically useful because it addresses:

ongoing pension plans.^[4]

Different guidance applies to missing participants in terminated plans.

FAB 2014-01 addresses terminated defined contribution plans and replaced earlier FAB 2004-02.^[10]

The plan's status therefore changes the guidance map.

A missing participant with an $800 balance can have different available pathways depending on whether the plan is:

• ongoing
• terminating
• abandoned.

INV-172 covers abandoned-plan QTAs.

Do not collapse these into one rule.

FAB 2026-01 Does a Different Job Again

FAB 2026-01 is not a transaction-specific safe harbor.

It sets EBSA's current enforcement priorities and guiding principles.^[3]

The bulletin identifies four themes:^[3]

1. focus enforcement on egregious conduct and significant harm
2. avoid regulating by enforcement where possible and promote prior notice, fairness and clarity
3. require senior-agency review of critical enforcement initiatives
4. pursue timely, responsive enforcement.

Those priorities matter to regulated parties.

But they do not rewrite substantive ERISA obligations.

An Enforcement Priority Is Not Permission

Suppose a plan has a technical disclosure violation causing minimal participant harm.

FAB 2026-01 may help explain how current EBSA leadership thinks about enforcement resources.^[3]

It does not mean:

"Minor violations are now legal."

Nor does it create a numeric de minimis threshold where the statute has none.

Priorities answer:

Where will the agency focus?

They do not necessarily answer:

What does the law require?

That distinction should stay explicit.

FAB 2012-02R Shows How Detailed a FAB Can Become

The participant-level disclosure regulation raised a large number of implementation questions.

FAB 2012-02R addressed those questions in a detailed Q&A format.^[6]

Topics included:

• covered plans
• designated investment alternatives
• brokerage windows
• plan administrative expenses
• individual expenses
• investment-related disclosures
• comparative charts
• changes in information.^[6]

For many administrators, the FAB became more operationally useful than the regulation alone.

That is exactly what good agency guidance can do:

translate a general rule into recurring implementation answers.

Revised Means Use the Revised Version

The original:

FAB 2012-02

was superseded by:

FAB 2012-02R.^[6]

This is not a cosmetic citation issue.

The revised version changed the guidance.

An article, compliance memo or plan procedure that cites the superseded version without checking the revision risks preserving an interpretation DOL modified.

The suffix:

R

can carry legal significance.

FAB 2014-01 Shows Full Replacement

Missing-participant guidance gives an even clearer example.

FAB 2014-01 states that it:

replaces FAB 2004-02.^[10]

Why?

The surrounding operational environment had changed.

Among other things, earlier letter-forwarding methods had disappeared and other guidance had evolved.^[10]

The lesson extends beyond missing participants.

Old FABs are not museum pieces.

Their continuing value depends on:

• later law
• later regulation
• later guidance
• revision
• replacement.

FAB 2008-04 Remains a Core Bonding Resource

FAB 2008-04 addresses ERISA Section 412 fidelity bonding.^[7]

It explains issues such as:

• who handles plan funds
• who must be bonded
• bond amount
• approved sureties
• deductibles
• service providers
• employer securities
• multi-plan bonds
• small-plan audit-waiver interaction.^[7]

INV-077 covers the bonding rules.

The important point here is document form.

A question that might appear nowhere in the statute with operational precision can be answered in a FAB Q&A.

That makes the bulletin practically important even though the underlying legal duty remains Section 412 and its regulations.

FAB 2004-03 Shows a Different Kind of Interpretation

Directed trustees sit in a narrow fiduciary role.

ERISA gives a directed trustee less discretion than an ordinary discretionary trustee, but not zero responsibility.

FAB 2004-03 explains DOL's reading of:

• proper directions
• review of plan documents
• contrary-to-ERISA directions
• knowledge of fiduciary breaches
• co-fiduciary issues.^[8]

INV-082 covers the trustee role.

For a plan committee, the bulletin is useful because it prevents two opposite mistakes:

"The trustee must second-guess every investment."

and:

"The trustee must blindly follow every instruction."

Neither is DOL's stated view.

FAB 2003-03 Changed Expense-Allocation Practice

FAB 2003-03 addresses how defined contribution plan expenses may be allocated among participants.^[9]

It explains that ERISA does not impose one universal:

• pro rata
• per capita

allocation method for all administrative expenses.^[9]

It also discusses charging certain participant-specific expenses to the participant's own account.^[9]

The bulletin explicitly superseded a contrary view from an earlier advisory opinion on QDRO expenses.^[9]

That is a strong reminder:

different guidance instruments can interact over time.

A current-law analysis needs chronology.

A FAB Can Supersede an Older Agency View

FAB 2003-03 did not merely add a new example.

It said its views superseded the earlier advisory-opinion position on specified expense allocation.^[9]

That creates an important hierarchy question.

A plan cannot say:

"But we have a favorable DOL letter from 1994."

without asking whether DOL later changed the agency position.

INV-175 makes the same point through the 2025 rescission of a 2023 advisory opinion.

Guidance is not static.

FAB 2025-02 Shows Guidance During Statutory-Regulatory Mismatch

SECURE 2.0 changed ERISA's annual funding notice requirements for defined benefit plans.

DOL's preexisting regulation had not yet been fully conformed.^[5]

FAB 2025-02 provided enforcement guidance and model notices for administrators navigating the changed statute.^[5]

That is not a 401(k) rule because annual funding notices principally concern defined benefit plans.

It is still useful to understand the role of a FAB:

Congress changes statute → older regulation no longer fits cleanly → DOL issues field guidance → later formal rulemaking may follow.

FAB 2026-02 follows a similar transition pattern for paper benefit statements and directly affects defined contribution plans.^[2]

Why a FAB Can Be More Useful Than a Generic FAQ

FABs often identify:

• issue
• legal background
• agency analysis
• enforcement direction

with more precision than a consumer-facing FAQ.

They are written for professionals applying ERISA in real investigations.

That makes them valuable source material for:

• counsel
• plan committees
• administrators
• service providers.

But professional detail does not elevate the document into a regulation.

Precision and legal form are separate concepts.

FAB vs. Advisory Opinion

Field Assistance Bulletin

Usually:

• addressed to EBSA enforcement leadership
• driven by recurring field questions
• generally relevant beyond one applicant
• may contain interpretation or enforcement policy
• no Procedure 76-1 party-specific reliance structure.^[1]

Advisory opinion

Usually:

• requested by identified person or organization
• applies law to a defined factual situation
• Section 10 reliance limited to described parties and facts.^[1]

INV-175 covers the advisory-opinion process in detail.

The two documents can discuss the same ERISA provision and still have different procedural meaning.

FAB vs. Information Letter

An information letter under Procedure 76-1 generally calls attention to:

well-established principles or interpretations.

It is informational and not binding for a particular factual situation.

A FAB, by contrast, is directed through the enforcement organization and addresses issues arising in field operations.^[1]

The FAB can also announce:

temporary enforcement relief.

That function is especially important.

An information letter is not normally the instrument used to tell regional enforcement offices:

do not pursue specified violations under these conditions.

FAB vs. Technical Release

EBSA separately publishes:

Technical Releases

under its guidance resources.^[1]

A technical release can provide technical agency guidance on implementation issues.

A FAB's defining institutional feature is its connection to field enforcement and its memorandum format to enforcement officials.^[1]

The titles alone should not determine weight.

Read:

• issuing office
• addressee
• purpose
• operative language.

Agency guidance categories overlap in subject matter but not necessarily in function.

FAB vs. Regulation

A regulation is adopted through the applicable rulemaking process and appears in the regulatory framework.

A FAB interprets or guides enforcement of law that already exists.

That is why FAB 2026-02 can reference a proposed rule without making it final.^[2][11]

If the final rule later conflicts with the temporary FAB approach:

the final rule controls going forward.

The compliance manual should be updated.

FAB vs. PTE

A prohibited-transaction exemption provides legal relief from specified prohibited-transaction rules when its conditions are satisfied.

A FAB may explain:

• how DOL reads a PTE
• what enforcement staff should examine
• transition relief.

But it does not create a new exemption unless it is itself accompanied by valid exemptive action through the proper authority.

INV-154 through INV-174 cover the exemption architecture.

Do not mix the two systems.

How Much Weight Should You Give a FAB?

A FAB is strongest when the question is:

"How does EBSA currently say its enforcement staff should approach this issue?"

That is the document's institutional purpose.^[1]

It is less complete when the question is:

"What is the final legal answer if this becomes contested litigation?"

A court applies:

• statutory text
• valid regulations
• controlling precedent
• the facts in the record.

A FAB can be relevant agency interpretation, but it is not interchangeable with those authorities.

This matters when an older bulletin contains language that sounds categorical.

Before treating the sentence as the rule, ask:

• Did Congress later amend ERISA?
• Did DOL later promulgate a regulation?
• Did another FAB revise the guidance?
• Did a court reject or narrow the agency's interpretation?
• Is the sentence describing enforcement discretion rather than legal obligation?

The practical hierarchy is simple:

primary law first; current agency guidance second; implementation judgment third.

That sequence prevents a compliance team from turning a useful memorandum into authority it was never designed to be.

A FAB Has Different Consequences in an EBSA Investigation and a Private Dispute

This distinction is easy to lose when a bulletin is favorable.

In an EBSA investigation, a current FAB can be directly important because it tells enforcement personnel how the Department wants a recurring issue handled.^[1]

If the bulletin contains an express nonenforcement commitment and the plan fits every condition, that can materially change the agency risk.

A private dispute is different.

A participant, beneficiary or other litigant is not transformed into EBSA simply because the Department announced a temporary enforcement posture.

FAB 2025-01 makes the distinction unusually explicit by preserving the rights of other parties.^[4]

A plan analyzing litigation exposure should therefore separate:

• statutory duty
• regulatory duty
• DOL enforcement position
• contractual obligations
• participant causes of action
• controlling case law.

The FAB belongs in that analysis.

It does not end it.

An Enforcement Memo Should Prove the Plan Fits the FAB

If a plan intends to rely operationally on temporary enforcement relief, the file should be stronger than:

"Counsel says FAB applies."

A useful memo records:

• exact bulletin number and date
• underlying ERISA provision
• plan type
• affected participants
• each eligibility condition
• facts supporting each condition
• relief DOL actually promises
• issues the bulletin leaves outside relief
• expected end date or superseding event
• person responsible for monitoring updates.

For FAB 2025-01, that means documenting more than the $1,000 ceiling.

The plan should be able to show:

• search history
• last known address
• state-fund eligibility
• prudence of the destination
• participant records
• required plan disclosures.^[4]

For FAB 2026-02, the record should explain which good-faith interpretation the administrator chose and how delivery procedures implement it.^[2]

That documentation is valuable because temporary guidance often disappears from day-to-day attention after the immediate implementation project ends.

Final Rule Day Requires a Fresh Comparison

A transition FAB should have an owner and a sunset trigger.

When DOL finalizes the underlying rule, the team should compare:

temporary operating procedure

against:

final regulatory text.

Do not assume the final rule will merely copy the proposal.

For the 2026 paper-statement issue, the February NPRM remains a proposal and DOL's current regulatory agenda still places the project in the proposed-rule stage as of this review.^[2][11]

When a final rule appears, the plan should review:

• effective date
• transition period
• participant elections
• paper and electronic delivery mechanics
• notice language
• fee restrictions
• grandfathering, if any
• whether FAB 2026-02 is expressly withdrawn or simply displaced.

The same discipline applies whenever a FAB exists because law changed faster than formal regulations.

Use the Underlying Authority as the Primary Anchor

A strong compliance memo does not say only:

"FAB 2012-02R requires..."

It should usually identify:

1. underlying statute/regulation
2. FAB interpretation
3. any later change.

Example:

The participant-disclosure regulation establishes the underlying fee-information duties.

FAB 2012-02R explains implementation questions.^[6]

That citation structure preserves the legal hierarchy.

If the FAB is later revised, the memo still shows the rule being interpreted.

The Headline Is Not the Scope

Consider:

Missing Participants and Beneficiaries.

That sounds broad.

FAB 2025-01 is actually narrow:

• ongoing pension plan
• missing participant/beneficiary
• benefit <=$1,000
• voluntary state-fund transfer
• qualifying state fund
• specified conditions
• specified Section 404(a) enforcement posture.^[4]

A headline search result can therefore create false confidence.

Always read the operative policy section.

Worked Example: $850 Missing 401(k) Benefit

An ongoing 401(k) owes a former participant:

$850.

Mail is returned.

The fiduciary:

• follows a prudent search program
• cannot locate participant
• identifies last known state
• confirms state's unclaimed-property fund meets FAB conditions
• updates/maintains required plan disclosure
• determines transfer is prudent.

The facts may fit FAB 2025-01's temporary enforcement policy.^[4]

The file should document each condition.

Do not merely note:

"Balance under $1,000."

The dollar test is necessary.

It is not sufficient.

Worked Example: $4,500 Missing Account

Same facts, but benefit is:

$4,500.

FAB 2025-01's <=$1,000 policy does not apply.^[4]

The plan cannot divide the account into five smaller transfers.

It needs another legally supportable route.

This is why operational systems should code the actual threshold rather than a vague label:

small balance.

Worked Example: 2026 Paper Statement

Calendar-year 401(k) normally delivers benefit statements electronically.

Plan wants to satisfy the new statutory paper requirement during 2026.

Compliance team should document:

1. applicable ERISA Section 105 rule
2. existing electronic-disclosure regulation
3. February 2026 NPRM
4. FAB 2026-02 temporary enforcement policy
5. chosen good-faith reasonable interpretation
6. which participant statement is being furnished on paper
7. monitoring trigger for final DOL rule.^[2][11]

That is much stronger than:

"Our recordkeeper says electronic delivery is fine."

The recordkeeper can implement.

The administrator owns the legal process.

Worked Example: Private Claim After Nonenforcement

Assume a plan fits FAB 2025-01's transfer conditions.

EBSA does not pursue the specified Section 404(a) transfer violation.

Later, a participant raises another claim involving:

• inadequate historical records
• failure to follow plan terms
• another legal theory.

The FAB preserves outside-party rights and specified recordkeeping enforcement.^[4]

The plan should not argue:

"DOL gave us immunity."

That is not what the bulletin says.

Worked Example: Superseded FAB

Compliance manual says:

"Per FAB 2012-02..."

Reviewer searches current DOL page and finds:

2012-02R.

The original version is superseded.^[6]

Correct response:

• compare old and revised text
• determine whether policy changed
• update citations
• update operational procedures if necessary.

Wrong response:

"Both are DOL documents, so either is fine."

Revision exists for a reason.

The Seven-Part FAB Reading Test

Before using any bulletin, answer:

1. What legal provision is being interpreted?

Statute?

Regulation?

Exemption?

2. What is the document doing?

Interpretation?

Temporary enforcement relief?

Transition policy?

3. Who and what does it cover?

401(k)?

Defined benefit plan?

Welfare plan?

Trustee?

Administrator?

4. What conditions matter?

Dollar limit?

Good faith?

Notice?

Search steps?

Timing?

5. What is expressly excluded?

Other ERISA sections?

Records?

Other parties' rights?

Tax issues?

6. How long does it last?

Permanent interpretation?

Until final regulation?

Until superseded?

7. Is it still current?

Later FAB?

Final regulation?

Statutory amendment?

Court decision?

That checklist is more useful than memorizing bulletin numbers.

The ROIStreet FAB Authority Map

Start with the legal issue → locate controlling ERISA statute → locate current regulation → identify relevant PTE if conflict transaction involved → search current EBSA FAB database → open the exact bulletin, not a secondary summary → identify addressee and purpose → classify bulletin as interpretive, enforcement-relief or mixed → extract exact plan type and actor → extract exact conditions → identify excluded violations and preserved rights → calendar duration/expiration trigger → search for R / revised version → search later FABs for replacement → check later statute/regulation/case law → cite underlying legal rule first → use FAB as current DOL interpretation or enforcement position → document fiduciary judgment separately

The key question is not:

"Is there a FAB on this topic?"

It is:

"What does this FAB actually do to the enforcement analysis, what does it leave untouched, and has anything happened since issuance that changes the answer?"

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a DOL Field Assistance Bulletin?

EBSA describes FABs as guidance written by the Office of Regulations and Interpretations to enforcement leadership in response to questions arising in field operations.^[1]

Are FABs only internal documents?

They are addressed to DOL enforcement personnel, but DOL publishes them publicly and regulated parties use them extensively as guidance.^[1]

Is a FAB a regulation?

No. A FAB does not itself amend ERISA or the CFR.^[1][2]

Can a FAB create a prohibited-transaction exemption?

Not by itself. PTE relief arises through the applicable statutory or administrative exemption authority.

Can a FAB contain a safe harbor?

A bulletin can announce time-limited nonenforcement treatment or describe conduct EBSA will treat favorably. Read the exact language. Do not label every FAB a statutory safe harbor.^[1][2][4]

What does temporary enforcement relief mean?

It means EBSA identifies circumstances in which its enforcement personnel will not pursue the violation specified by the bulletin during the stated period and subject to the listed conditions.^[2][4]

Does that make the underlying statute disappear?

No. FAB 2026-02 is a good example: the paper-statement statute is effective, while the bulletin supplies temporary enforcement treatment during unfinished rulemaking.^[2][11]

What is FAB 2026-02?

An interim enforcement policy concerning the new paper pension-benefit-statement requirement.^[2]

What plans does the paper requirement affect?

Individual account plans such as 401(k)s are already inside the new paper-statement regime for post-2025 plan years.^[2]

Is the February 2026 paper-statement rule final?

As of August 28, 2026, DOL's rulemaking remains at the proposed-rule stage.^[11]

What compliance approaches receive FAB 2026-02's temporary treatment?

EBSA describes good-faith compliance based either on the NPRM or directly on the new statutory paper-statement provision while formal implementation remains unfinished.^[2]

Does FAB 2026-02 last forever?

No. The bulletin makes the transition posture end when DOL supplies the specified superseding rule or guidance.^[2]

What is FAB 2025-01?

An interim nonenforcement policy for qualifying transfers of certain small missing-participant retirement payments from ongoing pension plans to eligible state unclaimed-property funds.^[4]

What is the dollar ceiling?

The present value of the nonforfeitable accrued benefit must be $1,000 or less under the policy.^[4]

Can an ongoing 401(k) send any missing account to a state?

No. The benefit amount, prudent-search requirement, destination and eligible-state-fund conditions all matter.^[4]

Which state's fund is used?

The eligible fund of the state corresponding to the participant's or beneficiary's last known address.^[4]

Can the state charge the missing participant a fee from the transferred balance?

One condition of the FAB is that the eligible state fund not reduce the transfer amount by fees or other charges.^[4]

Does FAB 2025-01 erase recordkeeping failures?

No. The bulletin expressly preserves DOL's ability to pursue specified recordkeeping-related violations.^[4]

Does FAB 2025-01 prevent private claims?

The bulletin expressly preserves claims or rights belonging to other parties.^[4]

Is FAB 2025-01 for terminated plans?

Its temporary policy addresses ongoing pension plans. Terminated-plan missing-participant guidance follows a different framework.^[4][10]

What does FAB 2026-01 do?

It states EBSA's current enforcement priorities and guiding principles, including focus on egregious conduct/significant harm, prior notice and clarity, senior review of critical initiatives and timely enforcement.^[3]

Does FAB 2026-01 make minor violations legal?

No. Enforcement priority and substantive legal compliance are different questions.^[3]

Why is FAB 2012-02R important to 401(k)s?

It provides extensive Q&A guidance implementing participant-level plan and investment fee-disclosure requirements.^[6]

Should I cite FAB 2012-02 or 2012-02R?

Use the revised 2012-02R. The earlier bulletin was superseded.^[6]

Is FAB 2004-02 still the current terminated-plan missing-participant bulletin?

No. FAB 2014-01 states that it replaced FAB 2004-02.^[10]

What does FAB 2008-04 cover?

ERISA fidelity bonding, including who must be bonded, coverage amounts, sureties, handling functions and related questions.^[7]

What does FAB 2004-03 cover?

The Department's interpretation of directed-trustee fiduciary responsibilities, including proper directions and limits on blind obedience to a directing fiduciary.^[8]

What does FAB 2003-03 cover?

Allocation of expenses among defined contribution plan participants and participant-specific accounts.^[9]

Can a FAB supersede an older advisory opinion?

Yes. FAB 2003-03 expressly superseded the earlier DOL view discussed there on specified QDRO expense allocation.^[9]

How is a FAB different from an advisory opinion?

An advisory opinion applies ERISA to identified parties and facts under Procedure 76-1. A FAB is general field-enforcement or interpretive guidance directed through EBSA's enforcement organization.^[1]

How is a FAB different from an information letter?

An information letter generally highlights established ERISA principles. A FAB responds to field issues and can also announce enforcement relief.^[1]

Should a committee rely on a FAB instead of Section 404 analysis?

No. The bulletin may inform the legal framework, but the fiduciary still must prudently apply the controlling law to the plan's own facts.^[8][9][12]

Sources & References

1. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletins — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins
2. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2026-02 — Temporary Enforcement Policy Regarding Pension Benefit Statements — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2026-02
3. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2026-01 — Guiding Principles for EBSA Enforcement Priorities — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2026-01
4. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2025-01 — Missing Participants and State Unclaimed Property Funds — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2025-01
5. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2025-02 — Annual Funding Notice Requirements Following SECURE 2.0 — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2025-02
6. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02R — Fee Disclosure Guidance — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2012-02r
7. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2008-04 — ERISA Fidelity Bonding Requirements — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2008-04
8. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2004-03 — Fiduciary Responsibilities of Directed Trustees — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2004-03
9. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2003-03 — Allocation of Expenses in a Defined Contribution Plan — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2003-03
10. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2014-01 — Fiduciary Duties and Missing Participants in Terminated Defined Contribution Plans — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2014-01
11. U.S. Department of Labor / Federal Register: Requirement to Provide Paper Statements in Certain Cases — Proposed Rule, 91 FR 9213 (February 25, 2026) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-02-25/pdf/2026-03723.pdf
12. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 29 U.S.C. §1104 — Fiduciary Duties — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1104

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about 401(k) administration, ERISA fiduciary duties and Department of Labor guidance. This article is not legal, fiduciary, tax, investment, regulatory, recordkeeping or plan-administration advice. A Field Assistance Bulletin may interpret existing law or announce an enforcement policy, but its effect depends on the exact bulletin, underlying statute or regulation, covered plan type, conditions, dates, later guidance and current law. Temporary nonenforcement should not be treated as a statutory exemption or complete immunity from participant, beneficiary or other claims. Older FABs should be checked for revision, replacement, superseding regulation and controlling court decisions before use.

The ROIStreet Reader Promise

We strive to explain before we evaluate, present evidence before opinions, discuss risks alongside potential benefits, distinguish facts from analysis, and correct material errors transparently.

Our purpose is to help readers better understand investing—not to tell them what to do.