What Is a DOL Information Letter for a 401(k) Plan?

A DOL information letter states an ERISA principle. It does not decide your facts.

That is the cleanest distinction between an information letter and the advisory opinion covered in INV-175.

ERISA Procedure 76-1 defines an information letter as a written statement that does no more than call attention to a well-established interpretation or principle without applying that principle to a specific factual situation.^[1]

The same procedure draws the opposite line for an advisory opinion: an advisory opinion interprets and applies ERISA to a specific factual situation.^[1]

That difference changes how a 401(k) committee should read the document.

An information letter can be valuable evidence of DOL's interpretation.

It is not:

• a regulation
• a prohibited-transaction exemption
• a court decision
• a fiduciary prudence certificate
• a private ruling that binds DOL to the recipient's facts.

Section 11 of Procedure 76-1 is explicit: an information letter is informational only and is not binding on the Department with respect to any particular factual situation.^[1]

That does not make the letter meaningless.

It tells you what kind of tool you are holding.

What Is the Core Difference From an Advisory Opinion?

The difference is not merely the heading at the top of the letter.

It is the job the document performs.

The practical consequence is easy to miss.

Suppose two committees are reading the same DOL information letter about service-provider selection.

Committee A says:

"DOL has explained that lowest price is not the only relevant factor. We should apply that principle to our own facts, document quality and cost, and test the decision under current fiduciary rules."

Committee B says:

"DOL approved paying more than the lowest bid, so our higher-cost vendor is automatically safe."

Committee A is using the letter correctly.

Committee B has converted general guidance into a private safe harbor that does not exist.

What Does Section 11 Actually Mean?

Section 11 does not say:

"Ignore information letters."

It says the letter is informational only and not binding on DOL for a particular factual situation.^[1]

Those are different ideas.

A document can be:

• nonbinding
• still official
• still useful
• still persuasive
• still evidence of an agency's longstanding interpretation.

The legal mistake is treating usefulness and binding effect as though they were the same question.

They are not.

For a 401(k) plan, the better questions are:

1. What principle did DOL state?
2. What authority did DOL rely on?
3. Is that authority still current?
4. Has DOL later changed, narrowed or rescinded the guidance?
5. Does the principle actually fit our facts?
6. Is there a current regulation or exemption that now answers the issue more directly?
7. Has a court rejected or limited the agency's interpretation?

That is how an information letter becomes useful without being overstated.

Can DOL Issue an Information Letter When You Asked for an Advisory Opinion?

Yes.

Procedure 76-1 contemplates that result.^[1]

An information letter may be appropriate when:

• the requester appears to be seeking general information
• the request does not satisfy the requirements for an advisory opinion
• DOL believes general information will still assist the requester.

That feature matters because a requester does not control the legal form of the response merely by putting:

"Request for Advisory Opinion"

at the top.

DOL can decide that the question is better answered by stating an established principle rather than applying the law to the particular transaction.

An older information letter can even say expressly that DOL is responding in information-letter form although an advisory opinion was requested.^[1]

The form reflects the Department's judgment about the nature of the answer.

Why Would DOL Prefer an Information Letter?

Because some questions do not require a new fact-specific interpretation.

Assume a sponsor asks:

"Must a fiduciary always select the cheapest qualified service provider?"

DOL does not need to decide whether Vendor A or Vendor B should win the sponsor's RFP.

It can state the established fiduciary principle:

• selection must follow a prudent process
• qualifications matter
• quality matters
• cost matters
• compensation must be reasonable
• lowest price is not automatically controlling.

That is exactly the kind of issue illustrated by DOL's 1997 service-provider information letter.^[10]

A general rule can answer the legal question without turning DOL into the sponsor's procurement committee.

Why Is This Format Useful for 401(k) Fiduciaries?

401(k) law contains broad standards.

Terms such as:

• prudence
• loyalty
• reasonableness
• diversification
• monitoring
• plan assets
• fiduciary
• investment duties

often require more than reading one sentence of ERISA.

A regulation may supply the operative rule.

An information letter can show how DOL has historically understood that rule in a recurring setting.

The 1996 derivatives letter is a good example.^[11]

DOL did not create a derivatives regulation.

It applied ordinary ERISA fiduciary concepts to a then-prominent investment issue and emphasized that derivatives are subject to fiduciary rules in the same general manner as other plan investments.^[11]

The letter then discussed:

• investment policy
• portfolio role
• loss exposure
• sophistication
• valuation
• stress testing
• operational controls
• manager oversight
• legal risk
• ongoing monitoring.^[11]

That is not a derivatives safe harbor.

It is a detailed explanation of what established fiduciary principles can require when the investment is complex.

What Is the 1996 Derivatives Letter's Most Durable Point?

Asset-class labels do not decide prudence.

That principle remains useful.

DOL's letter did not say:

"Derivatives are prudent."

It did not say:

"Derivatives are imprudent."

It said fiduciaries must understand what they own, why it belongs in the portfolio and what risks it creates.^[11]

That distinction has modern importance well beyond derivatives.

The same analytical mistake appears with:

• private equity
• cryptocurrency
• private credit
• real estate
• annuities
• collective investment trusts
• managed accounts.

A committee that begins with:

"DOL likes this asset class"

or:

"DOL dislikes this asset class"

is usually asking the wrong fiduciary question.

The better starting point is:

What does the investment do inside this plan, for these participants, under this process, at this cost and with these risks?

Did DOL Require Special Procedures for Derivatives?

The 1996 letter discussed procedures appropriate to the risk.

That included understanding:

• credit risk
• market risk
• leverage
• liquidity
• valuation difficulty
• operational systems
• manager competence
• legal documentation
• monitoring.^[11]

It also noted that some derivatives may require greater sophistication than other investments.

The lesson is not that every plan needs the same derivative checklist.

The lesson is that process depth should match investment complexity.

A committee should not turn examples from an information letter into mechanical conditions unless current law makes them conditions.

What Does the 1997 Service-Provider Letter Add?

It kills a persistent myth:

ERISA does not require the fiduciary to choose the lowest bidder simply because a lower quote exists.^[10]

DOL said service-provider selection should use an objective process designed to obtain information necessary to assess:

• qualifications
• work quality
• fees
• conflicts
• relevant surrounding facts.^[10]

Soliciting bids can be one method.

It is not the only method.

DOL also explained that a fiduciary need not necessarily choose the lowest bidder because quality and other relevant factors matter, although plan-paid compensation must remain reasonable.^[10]

That is a far better principle than:

"Three bids equals prudence."

Does the 1997 Letter Mean Competitive Bidding Is Unnecessary?

No.

The letter recognizes bidding as a useful way to gather information.^[10]

It rejects a mechanical rule that bidding must always occur or that the lowest bid must always win.

A committee evaluating a recordkeeper might reasonably compare:

A rational fiduciary process can select Provider B.

The information letter does not approve Provider B.

It explains why price alone does not complete the fiduciary analysis.

What If the Letter Discusses Old Form 5500 Rules?

Then separate the durable principle from obsolete mechanics.

The 1997 letter also discussed the then-current Schedule C reporting format.^[10]

That portion is obviously vulnerable to later form and instruction changes.

The service-provider-selection principle may still be useful.

This is the first rule for using older information letters:

Do not treat every sentence as equally evergreen.

A letter may contain:

• a durable statutory principle
• an old regulatory citation
• an outdated form reference
• a superseded dollar threshold
• an obsolete procedural detail.

The age of the letter is not the entire issue.

The type of proposition matters.

Can an Information Letter Interpret a Prohibited-Transaction Exemption?

Yes.

That is different from creating an exemption.

DOL's 2012 information letter addressed the meaning of "related" in PTE 84-14, the QPAM Exemption.^[9]

The letter discussed how the exemption's ownership tests operated and clarified the Department's interpretation of the exemption language.^[9]

That can be useful.

But the source of relief remains the exemption itself.

A plan cannot say:

"The information letter exempts our transaction."

The correct structure is:

1. ERISA Section 406 identifies the prohibition.
2. PTE 84-14 supplies conditional relief where its terms are satisfied.
3. The information letter may help interpret one element.
4. Current exemption text and amendments still control.

INV-161 covers PTE 91-38 and the broader PTE sequence; INV-173 and INV-174 cover the modern exemption architecture.

Why Is the QPAM Example Especially Important?

Because exemptions change.

PTE 84-14 has been amended over time.

An information letter interpreting a defined term at one point in the exemption's history cannot be read without checking the current exemption text.

The proper question is not:

"Did DOL say this in 2012?"

It is:

"Does the 2012 interpretation still fit the exemption as it exists now?"

That is the same validation discipline required for old regulations, old advisory opinions and old preambles.

What Did the 2014 Lifetime-Income Letter Address?

DOL's October 23, 2014 information letter considered target-date funds that used unallocated deferred annuity contracts as part of the fixed-income allocation.^[8]

The letter addressed two distinct frameworks:

• the QDIA regulation
• the annuity-selection fiduciary safe harbor then applicable to the described structure.^[8]

DOL concluded that the described deferred annuity component would not by itself cause the target-date funds to fail the relevant QDIA requirements and discussed the separate duties connected with selecting and monitoring the investment manager.^[8]

That distinction matters.

A product can satisfy one regulatory framework without solving every fiduciary issue around it.

Why Is the 2014 Letter Still a Good Research Example?

Because it resists category thinking.

A simplistic analysis asks:

"Can a target-date fund contain an annuity?"

The better analysis asks:

• Does the investment still fit the regulatory definition?
• What features are ancillary?
• What fiduciary selects the annuity?
• What safe harbor applies?
• Who monitors the investment manager?
• What duties remain at the plan level?

The information letter helps map those layers.

It does not convert every target-date annuity product into a QDIA.

What Did the 2016 Lifetime-Income Letter Clarify?

The December 22, 2016 letter addressed a default investment with lifetime-income features that did not satisfy one of the QDIA regulation's liquidity and transferability conditions.^[7]

DOL made an important distinction.

Failing to qualify for the QDIA safe harbor does not automatically mean the investment is imprudent.^[7]

DOL said a fiduciary could potentially conclude that an investment with lifetime-income features was a prudent default investment even without the fiduciary relief available under the QDIA regulation, provided the fiduciary satisfied ordinary ERISA duties.^[7]

That is a sophisticated point.

Safe harbor and prudence are not synonyms.

Is a Non-QDIA Default Investment Automatically Safe Under the 2016 Letter?

No.

The letter did not create a second QDIA category.

It preserved the broader fiduciary question.

A safe harbor generally says:

If you satisfy these conditions, specified legal protection follows.

Ordinary prudence asks:

Did the fiduciary use an objective, thorough and analytical process appropriate to the facts?

Those are different pathways.

A committee cannot cite the 2016 letter and stop.

It still has to analyze:

• the product
• liquidity restrictions
• transfer restrictions
• fees
• guarantees
• insurer strength where relevant
• participant demographics
• alternatives
• monitoring
• current regulation.

What Did the 2020 Private-Equity Information Letter Actually Say?

This is the most likely information letter to be overstated in a modern 401(k) investment discussion.

DOL's June 3, 2020 letter addressed private-equity investments as a component of a professionally managed asset-allocation fund offered as a designated investment alternative in an individual account plan.^[4]

That is narrower than:

"DOL approved private equity in 401(k)s."

The letter did not bless:

• every private-equity manager
• every private fund
• every allocation percentage
• direct participant selection of a stand-alone PE fund
• every plan size
• every valuation method
• every liquidity structure.

It focused on a professionally managed vehicle containing a PE component and preserved ordinary fiduciary obligations.^[4]

Why Does the 2020 Letter Matter More in 2026?

Because the guidance history changed.

DOL issued a supplemental statement in December 2021 addressing the 2020 letter.^[5]

That supplemental statement expressed additional caution about the use of private equity in defined contribution plan investment alternatives.

On August 12, 2025, DOL rescinded the 2021 supplemental statement.^[5][6]

The distinction is precise and important:

The rescission notice identified the 2021 supplemental statement as the document being rescinded.^[6]

A researcher should not silently rewrite that event as:

"DOL rescinded the 2020 information letter."

Those are different acts.

Does the 2025 Rescission Mean the 2020 Letter Is a Safe Harbor Again?

No.

The 2020 letter was never a universal safe harbor.

Rescinding later supplemental caution does not turn the earlier information letter into:

• a regulation
• an exemption
• a guarantee
• a product approval
• a Section 404 defense for every plan.

The original analytical discipline remains.

A fiduciary considering an alternative-asset component should still evaluate the current legal framework and the actual investment.

As of August 30, 2026, DOL also has a proposed rule addressing fiduciary duties in selecting designated investment alternatives.^[15]

That proposal is part of the current policy environment.

A proposal is not current regulatory safe-harbor relief.

INV-181 explains that preamble-and-proposal distinction.

What Is the Best Lesson From the Private-Equity Timeline?

Guidance has a life cycle.

2020: information letter.

2021: supplemental statement.

2025: supplemental statement rescinded.

2026: proposed rule addresses designated investment alternatives more broadly.^{[4][5][6][15]}

A competent research memo does not cite one date and stop.

It traces the sequence.

That is especially important when a vendor presentation contains only the most favorable document.

What Did the 2022 Pooled Employer Plan Letter Show?

DOL's September 7, 2022 information letter addressed ERISA bonding after the SECURE Act authorized pooled employer plans.^[12]

The issue was whether the statutory language effectively expanded bonding obligations for PEP-related persons.

DOL used established Section 412 bonding principles and regulations to explain how the new statutory provisions should operate.^[12]

That is a classic information-letter function:

new statutory context, established legal principle.

The letter also warned that bonding rules do not eliminate separate obligations concerning timely transmission and proper use of participant contributions.^[12]

One rule does not swallow the rest of ERISA.

Is the 2022 Letter the Latest Information Letter?

DOL's current information-letter index, reviewed on August 30, 2026, displays the September 7, 2022 PEP bonding letter as its newest listed information letter.^[2]

That is a statement about the current DOL index as reviewed.

It is not a promise that DOL will not publish another letter tomorrow.

This is why RFPP metadata marks the article for semiannual review.

Does an Information Letter Bind the Recipient?

Not in the Section 10 advisory-opinion sense.

That is the central point of Section 11.^[1]

The recipient can obviously read and use the guidance.

But the letter does not say:

"DOL is bound to reach this result if your precise facts are challenged."

That is why the document should not be marketed as:

"DOL approval."

The recipient's name appears because someone asked the question.

The legal function remains general.

Can Someone Other Than the Recipient Use the Letter?

Yes.

In one sense, information letters are more naturally general than advisory opinions because their stated purpose is to call attention to an established principle rather than decide the recipient's specific facts.^[1][3]

But "use" needs definition.

A third party can use the letter as:

• interpretive authority
• evidence of DOL's stated view
• historical guidance
• support for a legal argument
• a research starting point.

The third party cannot transform the letter into binding protection for its own transaction.

Is an Information Letter Stronger Than a Field Assistance Bulletin?

That is the wrong ranking question.

Different documents perform different jobs.

A Field Assistance Bulletin generally communicates guidance to EBSA field personnel on enforcement or interpretive issues.

An information letter responds to an inquiry by calling attention to established principles.

Neither becomes a regulation merely because it is more specific or newer.

The better comparison is functional:

INV-176 through INV-181 cover those neighboring formats.

Can an Information Letter Conflict With a Regulation?

It can appear to.

If it does, the regulation is the starting point.

An information letter cannot amend the CFR by implication.

Assume an old letter says:

"A fiduciary should do X."

A later regulation says:

"A fiduciary must do X, Y and Z."

The old letter cannot be used to erase Y and Z.

The correct research sequence is:

current statute → current regulation → current exemption where relevant → information letter → later guidance → controlling judicial authority.

That sequence prevents guidance from replacing law.

What If the Information Letter Is More Specific Than the Regulation?

Specificity can make the letter useful.

It does not automatically make it controlling.

Suppose the regulation states a broad prudence standard and the information letter lists five practical factors.

Ask:

• Are those five factors examples?
• Are they presented as required elements?
• Did later DOL guidance repeat them?
• Did a later rule codify some of them?
• Does the letter involve materially different facts?
• Does current case law treat the issue differently?

Do not convert:

"consider factors such as..."

into:

"ERISA always requires exactly these five factors."

That is how guidance turns into folklore.

Can a Vendor Say Its Product Is "DOL Approved" Because of an Information Letter?

That claim deserves immediate scrutiny.

Ask:

1. Is the product actually described in the letter?
2. Is the letter an information letter or advisory opinion?
3. Does the letter approve a product, or discuss a general structure?
4. What fiduciary duties did DOL preserve?
5. Has later guidance changed?
6. Does a current regulation now govern the issue?
7. Is the vendor omitting limiting language?

The 2020 private-equity letter is a perfect example.

A marketing slide that says:

"DOL approved PE in 401(k) plans"

throws away most of the legal analysis.

Worked Example: Higher-Cost Recordkeeper

A committee receives three proposals.

The lowest-cost provider charges $82 per participant.

Another charges $108.

The $108 provider has:

• stronger payroll integration
• materially lower historical error rates
• better cybersecurity documentation
• more experienced call-center staff
• lower transition risk.

Counsel cites the 1997 information letter for the proposition that ERISA does not force selection of the lowest bidder.^[10]

Correct use:

The letter supports evaluating quality and cost together. The committee still must document why the extra $26 per participant is reasonable for the services and risk reduction.

Incorrect use:

DOL says price does not matter.

The letter says the opposite.

Cost matters.

It is not the only factor.

Worked Example: Private-Equity Product Pitch

Vendor offers a stand-alone private-equity fund on the 401(k) menu.

Sales deck cites the 2020 DOL information letter.

Problem:

The letter addressed a PE component in a professionally managed asset-allocation fund.^[4]

That difference is not cosmetic.

Correct committee response:

"Show us why your structure fits the current fiduciary framework. Do not cite a managed-allocation letter as automatic approval of a stand-alone participant-directed PE option."

The citation may still be relevant to general principles.

It does not decide the product.

Worked Example: Lifetime-Income Default

Plan wants to use a default investment with transfer restrictions that prevent QDIA treatment.

Consultant cites the 2016 information letter.^[7]

Correct conclusion:

Loss of QDIA status does not necessarily make the investment imprudent.

Incorrect conclusion:

The 2016 letter gives QDIA protection anyway.

It does not.

The plan must decide whether ordinary fiduciary standards support the default arrangement without relying on the safe harbor.

Worked Example: Old QPAM Interpretation

Asset manager relies on the 2012 letter interpreting "related" under PTE 84-14.^[9]

Before relying on the interpretation, counsel checks:

• current PTE 84-14 text
• all amendments
• current definitions
• disqualification provisions
• current recordkeeping conditions
• whether the 2012 ownership analysis still fits the operative exemption.

That is proper use.

The letter is a source.

It is not a time capsule that freezes the exemption in 2012.

Worked Example: Supplemental Guidance Was Rescinded

Counsel writes:

"DOL rescinded its 2020 private-equity information letter in 2025."

That is imprecise.

The August 12, 2025 DOL action rescinded the December 21, 2021 supplemental statement.^[5][6]

A better memo says:

"DOL rescinded the 2021 supplemental statement that had supplemented the June 3, 2020 information letter. The current analysis should separately assess the status and continuing relevance of the original 2020 letter and any later rulemaking."

Document identity matters.

How Should a Committee Validate an Information Letter?

Use a seven-step check.

1. Identify the exact document

Confirm:

• date
• recipient
• subject
• DOL page
• whether it is truly an information letter.

Do not rely on a vendor excerpt.

2. Identify the exact proposition

Write one sentence:

"We are citing this letter for the proposition that..."

If you cannot finish that sentence narrowly, the citation is probably being used too broadly.

3. Find the underlying authority

What is the letter interpreting?

• ERISA statute
• regulation
• exemption
• prior DOL interpretation
• reporting rule
• fiduciary standard.

The information letter should lead you to the higher authority.

4. Check amendments

Ask whether the underlying law changed after the letter.

A 1997 Form 5500 mechanics statement and a 1997 prudence principle do not have the same shelf life.

5. Check later DOL guidance

Search for:

• supplemental statements
• rescissions
• new advisory opinions
• Field Assistance Bulletins
• regulations
• proposed rules
• updated fact sheets.

Chronology can change meaning.

6. Check judicial authority

A court can reject an agency interpretation or change how statutory or regulatory language is understood.

Post-Loper Bright, courts independently interpret statutes rather than deferring merely because an agency offered a reasonable reading of ambiguity.

INV-181 covers that distinction.

7. Apply the principle to the actual facts

This is the step the information letter itself does not do for you.

The committee must.

What Is a Good Citation Sentence?

Good:

"DOL has long stated that fiduciary selection of a service provider should evaluate relevant quality and cost factors rather than treating the lowest bid as automatically controlling."[10]

That accurately describes a general principle.

Weak:

"DOL approved our recordkeeper fee because it was not the lowest bid."

No DOL information letter approved the committee's current fee.

What Is a Good Investment Citation?

Good:

"DOL's 1996 derivatives information letter illustrates its longstanding view that investment prudence requires analysis of the investment's role, risks, controls and monitoring rather than a categorical judgment based solely on asset type."[11]

Weak:

"DOL approved derivatives in pension plans."

The first describes the principle.

The second invents a product approval.

Does the Age of an Information Letter Determine Its Value?

No.

Age is a warning to validate.

It is not a verdict.

The 1996 derivatives letter can remain useful because its central point tracks durable fiduciary concepts.

A two-year-old information letter can become stale quickly if Congress changes the statute it interpreted.

Think in terms of dependency.

A letter heavily dependent on:

• a dollar threshold
• a reporting form
• a regulation later amended
• a specific exemption definition

is more fragile.

A letter explaining a broad statutory prudence concept may be more durable.

That is why current-law review matters more than document age alone.

What If DOL Still Hosts the Letter?

Hosting is evidence that the document is part of DOL's historical guidance collection.

It is not an automatic representation that every proposition remains current.

DOL's site can preserve:

• old advisory opinions
• old information letters
• rescinded supplemental statements with a rescission notice
• historical guidance.

Researchers should read status notes.

The 2021 private-equity supplemental statement page now expressly notes its 2025 rescission.^[5]

That is exactly the kind of signal that should stop a copy-and-paste analysis.

Can an Information Letter Be Rescinded?

Agency guidance can be withdrawn, rescinded, superseded or overtaken.

The 2025 action concerning the private-equity supplemental statement proves the broader point.^[5][6]

For a specific information letter, confirm whether DOL has:

• expressly rescinded it
• superseded it
• contradicted it in later guidance
• replaced the underlying regulation
• taken a materially different position.

Do not infer rescission merely because a later administration expresses a different policy preference.

Look for the actual legal or administrative action.

What Should Be in the Committee File?

If an information letter materially influenced a decision, keep more than the PDF.

A disciplined file can include:

• the information letter
• the current statute
• the current regulation
• current exemption text if relevant
• later DOL guidance
• any rescission or status notice
• counsel analysis where appropriate
• vendor materials
• committee minutes showing how the principle was applied
• the actual facts supporting the decision.

That record shows the committee did more than search for a favorable sentence.

Can an Information Letter Eliminate the Need for Legal Advice?

No.

A difficult ERISA issue can involve:

• fiduciary law
• tax qualification
• securities law
• prohibited transactions
• plan-document terms
• participant disclosures
• state law
• contract terms.

Procedure 76-1 concerns Title I ERISA interpretations.^[1]

A DOL information letter does not answer every legal layer merely because the transaction touches a 401(k).

Does an Information Letter Protect Against Fiduciary Litigation?

Not by itself.

A plaintiff can still challenge:

• process
• fees
• conflicts
• monitoring
• investment selection
• recordkeeping
• participant harm.

The information letter may support the fiduciary's interpretation of an ERISA principle.

It does not manufacture facts showing the committee actually followed that principle.

Documentation and process remain separate.

What Is the Best Way to Think About Legal Weight?

Use a hierarchy rather than a binary label.

Highest operational priority

• governing statute
• current valid regulation
• current valid exemption
• controlling judicial authority.

Interpretive layer

• final-rule preambles
• Interpretive Bulletins
• advisory opinions
• information letters
• other DOL guidance, depending on context.

Explanatory layer

• fact sheets
• FAQs
• press releases
• presentations.

That is not a universal court-created ranking for every question.

It is a practical research discipline.

The closer a source is to enacted or validly promulgated legal text, the less likely a committee should be to let a shorter guidance document override it.

Quick Decision Table

Fast Answers

Is a DOL information letter binding?

Procedure 76-1 says it is informational only and not binding on DOL for any particular factual situation.^[1]

Is it useless because it is nonbinding?

No. It can be important evidence of DOL's established interpretation.

Is it the same as an advisory opinion?

No. An advisory opinion applies law to specific facts; an information letter states a general principle.^[1][3]

Can the recipient rely on it like an advisory opinion?

Not under the Section 10 party-and-fact reliance framework.

Can other plans cite it?

Yes, as interpretive guidance, subject to current-law validation.

Can it create a prohibited-transaction exemption?

No.

Can it interpret an existing exemption?

Yes. The 2012 QPAM information letter is an example.^[9]

Does the 1997 letter require the lowest-cost service provider?

No. DOL said relevant quality and cost factors should be considered and the lowest bidder is not automatically required.^[10]

Does the 1996 derivatives letter approve derivatives?

No. It explains fiduciary analysis for derivatives and emphasizes understanding, risk controls and monitoring.^[11]

Did the 2020 private-equity letter approve stand-alone PE funds for 401(k)s?

No. The letter addressed private equity as a component of professionally managed asset-allocation funds.^[4]

Was the 2020 letter rescinded in 2025?

DOL's August 12, 2025 action expressly rescinded the 2021 supplemental statement.^[5][6] Do not collapse the two documents.

Does the 2016 lifetime-income letter create QDIA status for nonqualifying investments?

No. It explains that an investment can potentially be prudent as a default even if it does not receive QDIA safe-harbor treatment.^[7]

Is the 2022 PEP bonding letter still the newest item on DOL's information-letter index?

As reviewed August 30, 2026, DOL's index displays the September 7, 2022 letter as the newest listed information letter.^[2]

Can an old information letter still matter?

Yes, if its legal foundation remains current and the proposition is not superseded.

What is the safest one-sentence rule?

Use the information letter for the principle; use current law and your own facts for the decision.

Sources & References

1. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: ERISA Procedure 76-1 for ERISA Advisory Opinions and Information Letters — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/advisory-opinions/filing-requests-for-erisa-aos
2. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letters — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters
3. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Opinion Letters — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resources/opinion-letters
4. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letter 06-03-2020 — Private Equity in Defined Contribution Plan Designated Investment Alternatives — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/06-03-2020
5. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Supplemental Statement on Private Equity in Defined Contribution Plan Designated Investment Alternatives — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/06-03-2020-supplemental-statement
6. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: U.S. Department of Labor Rescinds 2021 Supplemental Statement on Alternative Assets in 401(k) Plans — https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20250812
7. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letter 12-22-2016 — Lifetime Income Default Investments — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/12-22-2016
8. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letter 10-23-2014 — Target Date Funds and Deferred Annuities — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/10-23-2014
9. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letter 11-09-2012 — QPAM Definition of Related — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/11-09-2012
10. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letter 12-01-1997 — Plan Service-Provider Selection and Fees — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/12-01-1997
11. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letter 03-21-1996 — Derivatives and ERISA Fiduciary Duties — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/03-21-1996
12. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Information Letter 09-07-2022 — Pooled Employer Plan Bonding — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/information-letters/09-07-2022
13. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2550.404a-1 — Investment Duties — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2550.404a-1
14. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2550.404c-5 — Qualified Default Investment Alternatives — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2550.404c-5
15. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives — Proposed Rule — https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/erisa/fiduciary-duties-in-selecting-designated-investment-alternatives.pdf

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about 401(k) plans, ERISA fiduciary duties, Department of Labor guidance, information letters, advisory opinions, investment selection, service-provider oversight, prohibited transactions and retirement-plan administration. This article is not legal, fiduciary, tax, investment, recordkeeping or plan-administration advice. Information letters are interpretive guidance and their usefulness depends on the precise proposition cited, the current statute, current regulations, current exemption text, later DOL guidance, judicial decisions and the plan's actual facts. A letter that remains available on a government website may contain historical rules, forms, thresholds or interpretations that require current-law validation. Nothing in an information letter substitutes for a fiduciary's independent prudence, loyalty, diversification, monitoring, plan-document or prohibited-transaction analysis.

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.