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

A DOL Interpretive Bulletin explains how the Department reads ERISA or a related regulation. Many of those bulletins are codified in 29 CFR Part 2509, but that CFR placement does not transform an interpretive rule into an independent source of substantive law.^[1][12][13]

That distinction is unusually important with Part 2509.

A compliance professional sees:

29 CFR §2509.96-1

and naturally thinks:

regulation.

The document is indeed codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Its stated function, however, is interpretive. It tells the public how DOL construes an existing statute or regulation.^[1][8]

The safest hierarchy is:

ERISA statute → valid substantive regulation → Interpretive Bulletin explaining DOL's construction → plan fiduciary applies the law to the actual facts.

That hierarchy avoids two opposite mistakes:

• treating a bulletin as if it were merely an informal blog post
• treating it as if DOL independently legislated a new duty through interpretation.

Why Is Part 2509 Unusual?

Part 2509 is titled:

Interpretive Bulletins Relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.^[1]

As of August 2026, the current eCFR contains 11 sections:^[1]

1. §2509.75-3 — registered investment companies
2. §2509.75-4 — fiduciary indemnification
3. §2509.75-5 — fiduciary responsibility Q&A
4. §2509.75-8 — additional fiduciary responsibility Q&A
5. §2509.78-1 — certain welfare-plan payments
6. §2509.94-3 — in-kind contributions
7. §2509.95-1 — defined-benefit annuity-provider selection
8. §2509.96-1 — participant investment education
9. §2509.99-1 — payroll-deduction IRAs
10. §2509.2015-02 — state savings programs involving ERISA plans
11. §2509.2022-01 — plan auditor independence.

That list spans almost half a century.

Some sections date to ERISA's first year.

The newest current section dates to 2022.^[11]

Part 2509 is therefore not one coordinated modern rulebook. It is a surviving collection of DOL interpretations issued at different moments to solve different problems.

Does Being in the CFR Make a Bulletin Binding Law?

Not by itself.

The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires notice-and-comment procedures for substantive rules but excludes interpretive rules from that ordinary requirement.^[12]

The Supreme Court has described the central feature of an interpretive rule this way: it advises the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules the agency administers. The Court has also said interpretive rules do not themselves carry independent legal force.^[13]

That distinction does not disappear merely because an agency chose to publish an interpretation in the CFR.

A court still determines the meaning of:

• ERISA
• a substantive DOL regulation
• the legal consequence of the plan's facts.

The Interpretive Bulletin can be important evidence of the agency's considered position.

It is not a substitute for the underlying law.

Then Why Should a 401(k) Fiduciary Care About an Interpretive Bulletin?

Because DOL administers and enforces Title I of ERISA.

Its considered interpretation can shape:

• compliance programs
• investigations
• service-provider contracts
• fiduciary committee procedures
• litigation arguments
• plan administration.

IB 96-1, for example, has influenced participant education for decades.^[8]

IB 75-8 remains a standard citation for the difference between:

• ministerial plan work
• fiduciary discretion.^[5]

IB 75-4 still appears in indemnification analysis.^[3]

Calling those bulletins interpretive does not make them unimportant.

It identifies the correct legal role they play.

Which Current Bulletins Matter Most to a 401(k)?

Not every surviving Part 2509 section has the same relevance to a defined contribution plan.

A practical 401(k) reading map looks like this:

The remaining welfare-plan bulletin can matter to ERISA practice without being a central 401(k) authority.^[1]

This table also shows why a generic statement such as:

“Part 2509 says...”

is usually too broad.

Each section interprets a different statutory problem.

The plan needs the right bulletin, not merely a bulletin.

What Does IB 75-3 Mean for Mutual-Fund Investments?

IB 75-3 interprets ERISA Section 3(21)(B), which addresses plans investing in securities issued by registered investment companies.^[1]

The bulletin says the investment alone does not make:

• the investment company
• its investment adviser
• its principal underwriter

a plan fiduciary or party in interest solely because the plan owns fund shares.^[1]

That principle matters because a 401(k) can hold mutual funds without converting every asset inside the fund into direct plan assets merely by purchasing shares.

But IB 75-3 contains an equally important boundary.

If the investment company, adviser or underwriter is already a fiduciary or party in interest for another reason, the mutual-fund investment does not erase that status.^[1]

Example: Ordinary fund lineup

A 401(k) buys shares of an unaffiliated registered mutual fund.

The fund adviser does not become the plan's ERISA fiduciary merely because the plan owns those shares.^[1]

Example: Separate fiduciary relationship

The plan separately hires the same advisory organization to exercise discretionary authority over plan assets.

Now the organization may be a fiduciary because of that separate function.

IB 75-3 does not say:

“Mutual-fund provider can never be a fiduciary.”

It says the investment-company relationship alone does not create the status addressed by Section 3(21)(B).^[1]

That distinction mirrors a recurring ERISA principle:

status follows function and relationship, not product label alone.

Why Are Early Bulletins Still Cited After Fifty Years?

Some early bulletins survived because the core statutory concepts they interpret survived.

Examples:

• functional fiduciary status
• named-fiduciary structure
• indemnification
• delegation
• ministerial administration.

Those are not temporary transition issues.

ERISA still uses those concepts.

That explains why IB 75-4, 75-5 and 75-8 remain in current Part 2509 while DOL removed other 1975 material in 2025.^[1][2]

Age therefore creates a research obligation, not an automatic conclusion.

The useful question is:

Did later law replace this interpretation, or does the old interpretation still fit the current statute and regulatory structure?

A fifty-year-old bulletin that remains in the current eCFR after a targeted 2025 cleanup deserves more attention than a fifty-year-old citation copied from an old treatise without current verification.

How Should You Read an Interpretive Bulletin?

Start with four questions.

What provision is DOL interpreting?

Examples:

• Section 410(a) in IB 75-4^[3]
• fiduciary definitions and duties in the early 75-5/75-8 Q&A^[4][5]
• prohibited transactions and Section 404 in IB 94-3^[6]
• investment-advice fiduciary status in IB 96-1^[8]
• auditor independence under ERISA Section 103 in IB 2022-01.^[11]

What exact issue does the bulletin answer?

Do not generalize beyond it.

What happened later?

Check:

• statute
• regulation
• court decisions
• later DOL guidance
• removal or revision.

Do the plan's facts actually fit?

Interpretation is never stronger than factual fit.

That method is especially important with a collection containing documents from 1975.

What Does IB 75-4 Say About Fiduciary Indemnification?

ERISA Section 410(a) generally voids provisions that purport to relieve a fiduciary from ERISA responsibility or liability.

IB 75-4 draws a distinction that still matters.^[3]

Permissible structure

A fiduciary remains:

• responsible
• legally liable

for a breach, while another party may agree to satisfy the financial liability.^[3]

Examples can include indemnification by:

• employer
• employer affiliate
• employee organization.^[3]

The fiduciary is not excused.

Someone else may pay.

Impermissible structure

DOL says an arrangement where the plan itself indemnifies the fiduciary can violate Section 410(a) when it effectively destroys the plan's right to recover from the breaching fiduciary.^[3]

That would reproduce the economic result of an exculpatory clause.

The distinction is:

who remains legally responsible?

Not merely:

who writes the check?

Example: Employer Indemnification

A company appoints employees to its 401(k) investment committee.

The company agrees:

> If a committee member incurs liability while serving, the company may indemnify the member subject to applicable law.

The agreement does not say:

• the member has no ERISA liability
• participants waive claims
• the plan waives recovery rights.

IB 75-4 treats that type of third-party indemnification differently from a clause that relieves the fiduciary of responsibility itself.^[3]

The arrangement still needs review under:

• other ERISA provisions
• insurance law
• corporate law
• actual contract language.

The bulletin does not bless every indemnification clause.

Example: Plan-Funded Indemnification

Change the arrangement.

The plan document says:

> Any fiduciary liability will be paid from plan assets, and the plan waives recovery from the fiduciary.

That is the problem IB 75-4 identifies.^[3]

The plan would bear the loss caused by the person who breached the duty while losing its recovery right against that person.

Calling the clause:

indemnification

does not change its economic effect.

Why Do the Early Fiduciary Q&A Still Matter?

These early bulletins answer foundational fiduciary questions that remain surprisingly current.^[4][5]

They cover issues such as:

• named fiduciaries
• investment managers
• board responsibilities
• ministerial functions
• co-fiduciary duties
• reliance on service providers
• bonding.

Their age should make a reader cautious.

It should not make the reader dismiss them.

Both bulletins themselves warn that later legal developments must be considered.^[4][5]

That warning is part of the guidance.

Ministerial Work Does Not Automatically Create Fiduciary Status

IB 75-8 D-2 lists administrative functions that can remain ministerial when performed inside a framework established by someone else.^[5]

Examples include:

• applying fixed eligibility rules
• calculating service credits
• maintaining participant records
• preparing government reports
• calculating benefits
• processing claims under established rules
• preparing benefit reports.^[5]

The decisive feature is lack of discretionary authority or control.

A recordkeeper can perform enormous amounts of plan administration without automatically becoming a fiduciary for every task.

But the label:

recordkeeper

is not a shield if the provider actually exercises fiduciary authority.

ERISA status follows function.

Example: Ministerial Recordkeeper

Plan document says participants become eligible after:

1,000 hours of service.

Recordkeeper receives payroll data and mechanically applies the formula.

No discretion.

No interpretation.

No authority to change eligibility.

That is the kind of activity IB 75-8 treats as ministerial.^[5]

Now change the facts.

The provider can decide whether unusual service counts based on its own interpretation of ambiguous plan language.

That is a different functional analysis.

The same company can perform:

• nonfiduciary work in one function
• fiduciary work in another.

Are Corporate Directors Automatically 401(k) Fiduciaries?

No.

IB 75-8 D-4 explains that members of an employer's board are fiduciaries to the extent they perform fiduciary functions.^[5]

A common example is:

• selecting
• retaining

plan fiduciaries.^[5]

If the board appoints the investment committee, that appointment and monitoring function can be fiduciary.

It does not follow that every board member is the day-to-day fiduciary for every participant loan, investment trade or distribution.

Functional allocation matters.

INV-131 covers the investment committee structure in detail.

Can a Fiduciary Rely on a Service Provider?

IB 75-8 FR-11 says a plan fiduciary can rely on information, data, statistics or analyses provided by people performing ministerial functions when the fiduciary has acted prudently in selecting and retaining them.^[5]

That is not blind reliance.

Suppose recordkeeper supplies a quarterly fee report.

The committee can use it.

But repeated obvious errors can change what prudent reliance looks like.

A fiduciary cannot keep saying:

“The vendor gave us the number.”

when the file shows reasons to doubt:

• competence
• integrity
• responsibility
• accuracy.

The bulletin supports reasonable delegation.

Not abdication.

The Early Q&A Warn Readers to Check Later Law

The early bulletins say readers should consider later:^[4][5]

• legislation
• regulations
• court decisions
• interpretive bulletins.

That language is unusually valuable in 2026.

DOL was not telling users:

“Freeze this answer in 1975.”

It was telling them to use the answer inside an evolving legal system.

That is exactly how old Part 2509 material should be handled today.

What Does IB 94-3 Say About In-Kind Contributions?

IB 94-3 addresses contributions of property rather than cash.^[6]

Its central point is easy to miss:

an employer can create a prohibited sale or exchange by transferring property to satisfy a contribution obligation measured in cash.^[6]

Why?

Because the employer is effectively exchanging property for reduction of an obligation owed to the plan.^[6]

The bulletin applies that reasoning to defined contribution plans as well as defined benefit plans, with important factual distinctions.^[6]

Example: Real Estate Instead of a Required Cash Contribution

Profit-sharing plan requires employer contribution equal to:

5% of annual profits.

The obligation is measured in dollars.

Employer owes:

$500,000.

Instead of cash, employer transfers a parcel of real estate worth $500,000.

IB 94-3 says using the property to reduce the cash-measured obligation can be a prohibited transaction absent an applicable exemption.^[6]

The fact that the property is worth $500,000 does not eliminate the exchange.

Fair value and prohibited-transaction status are separate questions.

Not Every In-Kind Contribution Has the Same Result

Suppose a discretionary profit-sharing plan does not obligate the employer to contribute any amount measured in cash.

Employer voluntarily contributes unencumbered property.

IB 94-3 describes circumstances where that transfer does not constitute the prohibited sale or exchange addressed by the bulletin because no cash-measured obligation is being extinguished.^[6]

But that is not the end of the analysis.

The plan fiduciary still has to decide whether accepting the property is prudent.^[6]

Section 404 Still Applies to the Asset

IB 94-3 separately says acceptance of an in-kind contribution is a fiduciary act.^[6]

The fiduciary should consider issues such as:

• value
• liquidity
• concentration
• liabilities attached to property
• diversification
• participant interests.^[6]

This is a recurring ERISA pattern:

not prohibited under Section 406

does not mean:

prudent under Section 404.

The exemption series INV-143 through INV-174 repeatedly uses the same distinction from the opposite direction.

Why Is IB 96-1 So Important to 401(k)s?

IB 96-1 addresses participant investment education.^[8]

It explains circumstances where furnishing specified investment-related information does not, by itself, constitute investment advice under the fiduciary definition.^[8]

The bulletin identifies four broad categories.

Plan information

Examples include information about:

• plan participation
• plan terms
• investment alternatives
• contribution mechanics.^[8]

General financial and investment information

Examples include:

• diversification
• risk and return
• compounding
• inflation
• retirement income needs
• time horizon
• risk tolerance.^[8]

Asset-allocation models

Models can illustrate hypothetical allocations when the bulletin's conditions are satisfied.^[8]

Interactive investment materials

Worksheets, questionnaires and software can help participants assess retirement needs or asset allocation without necessarily becoming fiduciary advice when the conditions are met.^[8]

INV-142 covers the education/advice line in depth.

Does IB 96-1 Create a Magic “Education” Label?

No.

A provider cannot convert individualized advice into education by naming the webpage:

Education Center.

Suppose a participant enters:

• age
• account balance
• risk tolerance
• retirement date.

The system responds:

> Sell $80,000 of Fund A and buy Fund B.

That is materially different from explaining diversification in general.

Current fiduciary status must be analyzed under the governing fiduciary rule and actual relationship.^[8][14]

IB 96-1 is an interpretation of that legal boundary.

It is not a branding safe harbor.

IB 96-1 Has Its Own Regulatory History

The 2016 fiduciary rule removed IB 96-1 as part of a broader rewrite.

After the Fifth Circuit vacated the 2016 fiduciary rule, DOL issued a 2020 technical amendment restoring the pre-2016 regulatory text and reinstating IB 96-1.^[14]

That history makes an important point about Interpretive Bulletins:

current status can depend on the surrounding regulatory framework.

A PDF from one year is not enough.

Check the current eCFR.

What Does IB 99-1 Do?

IB 99-1 addresses employer payroll-deduction programs used to fund IRAs.^[9]

Its central question is plan status.

DOL had long taken the position that an employer does not necessarily create an ERISA pension plan merely by providing a payroll mechanism through which employees voluntarily fund their own IRAs.^[9]

The bulletin explains how employer involvement affects that boundary.^[9]

This matters because workplace savings arrangements do not all become 401(k)s or ERISA plans simply because payroll is involved.

INV-177's discussion of Technical Release 2026-02 shows a modern version of the same plan-status problem in a different savings structure.

What Does IB 2015-02 Do?

IB 2015-02 addresses state programs that sponsor or facilitate retirement savings options through ERISA-covered plans.^[10]

DOL's view is that ERISA preemption does not automatically block every state initiative that facilitates ERISA plans where:^[10]

• employer participation is voluntary
• ERISA protections fully apply.

The bulletin discusses models such as:

• state marketplaces
• state-facilitated ERISA arrangements
• multiple-employer approaches.^[10]

It also distinguishes those ERISA models from separate payroll-deduction IRA approaches.^[10]

The article's larger lesson is the same:

an Interpretive Bulletin can address broad legal architecture without becoming the statute it interprets.

What Does IB 2022-01 Do?

IB 2022-01 addresses independence of the qualified public accountant retained for an employee benefit plan audit.^[11]

It is the newest section currently listed in Part 2509.^[1][11]

The bulletin says DOL considers all relevant circumstances and identifies relationships that can defeat independence.^[11]

Examples include the accountant or firm having certain:

• financial interests
• management or employment relationships
• responsibility for maintaining the plan accounting records.^[11]

That last point is operationally important.

The auditor should not be put in the position of auditing its own plan accounting work.

Can the Plan Auditor Also Work for the Sponsor?

Potentially.

IB 2022-01 says an accountant does not automatically lose plan-audit independence solely because the firm performs professional work for the plan sponsor, subject to the rest of the independence analysis.^[11]

But multiple services can still create a problem.

DOL looks at substance.

Example:

Accounting firm:

• audits 401(k) financial statements
• provides unrelated corporate tax work to sponsor.

That relationship is different from:

• maintaining the plan accounting records
• then auditing those same records.

The bulletin supplies the framework.

The actual facts determine independence.

Why Isn't IB 95-1 a General 401(k) Annuity Rule?

IB 95-1 concerns selection of an annuity provider when a defined benefit pension plan transfers benefit liabilities to an insurer.^[7]

The current text expressly tells readers that guidance for individual account plans is found at:

29 CFR 2550.404a-4.^[7]

That scope sentence prevents a common mistake.

A 401(k) committee should not mechanically copy the defined-benefit “safest available annuity” framework into every defined contribution distribution decision.

The plan type matters.

An Interpretive Bulletin can be current and still be the wrong authority for your transaction.

What Changed in Part 2509 in 2025?

DOL removed three old Interpretive Bulletins:^[2]

• IB 75-2
• IB 75-6
• IB 75-10.

The direct final rule was published July 1, 2025 and became effective:

September 2, 2025.^[2]

The current eCFR confirms those sections are no longer in Part 2509.^[1]

This is one of the best recent examples of why guidance inventories need maintenance.

What Made IB 75-2 Obsolete?

IB 75-2 addressed prohibited transactions involving a party in interest transacting with an entity in which a plan had invested.^[2]

Over the decades, DOL issued:

• plan-asset regulation
• later prohibited-transaction guidance
• advisory opinions.^[2]

DOL concluded the old bulletin no longer served its original purpose as a concise, ready reference.^[2]

The lesson is not:

the subject disappeared.

The lesson is:

the legal analysis moved to newer authority.

A Later Regulation Replaced IB 75-6

IB 75-6 addressed advances to a fiduciary for expenses incurred on behalf of a plan.^[2]

DOL adopted a final regulation in 1977 at:

29 CFR 2550.408c-2.^[2]

The Department said that regulation replaced IB 75-6.^[2]

Yet the old bulletin remained in Part 2509 for decades.

In 2025, DOL removed the duplicate.^[2]

That is an unusually clean example of:

interpretive guidance → later substantive regulation.

Once the regulation controls, continuing to cite the replaced bulletin adds confusion.

Reorganization Made IB 75-10 Unnecessary

IB 75-10 addressed the early overlap between DOL and IRS jurisdiction over parallel ERISA and Code provisions.^[2]

Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 later allocated interpretive responsibility between the agencies, with exceptions.^[2]

DOL concluded the special reliance structure was no longer necessary.^[2]

Again, the old issue was overtaken by later legal architecture.

Not simply forgotten.

Did the 2025 Removal Retroactively Erase Those Bulletins?

No.

DOL said the removals were:

prospective.^[2]

The rule expressly stated that removal had no effect on the bulletins' legal effectiveness before the effective date.^[2]

That distinction matters for historical analysis.

Suppose a transaction occurred in:

2024.

A legal memorandum may need to understand the authority and agency position that existed then.

For a transaction in:

2026.

the current Part 2509 text is the better starting point.

Historical authority and current authority are different research questions.

Example: A Compliance Manual Still Cites IB 75-6

Manual says:

> Fiduciary expense advances are governed by 29 CFR 2509.75-6.

In 2026, that citation is stale.

The section has been removed.^[1][2]

The correct response is not simply to delete the sentence.

The compliance team should:

1. identify the underlying issue
2. locate the current expense-advance regulation
3. compare old procedure against the regulation
4. update legal citation
5. determine whether operational steps need revision.

Citation cleanup can reveal substantive process drift.

Can an Old Bulletin Still Matter After Removal?

Potentially for:

• historical transactions
• understanding regulatory development
• litigation over earlier conduct
• interpreting why later rules were adopted.

But a removed bulletin should not be presented as current Part 2509 authority.

The research note should label it accurately:

historical / removed effective September 2, 2025.

That is a much stronger practice than keeping a dead citation because it once appeared in a template.

Interpretive Bulletin vs. Substantive Regulation

Substantive regulation

Creates legally binding requirements through delegated rulemaking authority when validly adopted.

Interpretive Bulletin

States DOL's interpretation of existing ERISA provisions or regulations.^[12][13]

The bulletin can be persuasive.

It can shape enforcement.

It can be codified.

But interpretive status matters when asking where the underlying legal duty comes from.

The duty should trace back to:

• statute
• substantive regulation
• valid exemption condition where relevant.

Advisory Opinions Have a Different Reliance Structure

INV-175 covers advisory opinions.

An advisory opinion is issued under Procedure 76-1 around:

• identified parties
• specific facts.

Its reliance structure is fact- and party-specific.

An Interpretive Bulletin generally states a broader DOL construction intended for wider application.

Example:

IB 96-1

is not an answer to one employer's private request.^[8]

It sets out general investment-education categories for participant-directed plans.

Field Assistance Bulletins Serve Enforcement Operations

INV-176 covers FABs.

A Field Assistance Bulletin is institutionally tied to questions arising in EBSA field enforcement and is commonly directed to enforcement leadership.

A Part 2509 Interpretive Bulletin is a broader published interpretation and, in many cases, codified in the CFR.

Both can influence enforcement.

Their issuance form and legal role differ.

Technical Releases Use a More Flexible Guidance Format

INV-177 covers Technical Releases.

Technical Releases are a flexible public-guidance format.

One may:

• interpret law
• announce temporary enforcement policy
• provide implementation guidance
• request comment.

Interpretive Bulletins have a more specific historical identity as DOL interpretations of ERISA and related regulatory provisions, with the surviving set collected in Part 2509.^[1]

Compliance Assistance Releases Address a Different Agency Function

Compliance Assistance Releases can explain current EBSA investigative or enforcement posture and fiduciary compliance expectations.

INV-178 covers that format.

The 2025 cryptocurrency release, for example, changed DOL's stated enforcement and interpretive posture without amending ERISA's statutory prudence standard.

Part 2509 bulletins occupy a different lane:

codified interpretive guidance.

The distinction is useful when building an authority hierarchy.

Can an Interpretive Bulletin Exempt a Prohibited Transaction?

No.

A bulletin can explain how DOL interprets:

• Section 406
• Section 408
• a class exemption
• a transaction structure.

But prohibited-transaction relief must come from valid authority such as:

• statutory exemption
• class exemption
• individual exemption.^[6]

IB 94-3 is a good example.

It identifies when an in-kind contribution can create a prohibited transaction.^[6]

It does not create a new exemption for the transaction.

How Much Weight Should You Give an Interpretive Bulletin?

Enough to take DOL's current interpretation seriously.

Not enough to stop reading the primary law.

The Supreme Court's interpretive-rule cases make clear that interpretive rules do not themselves carry the force and effect of law.^[13]

Courts can still consider agency interpretations for their persuasive value depending on:

• reasoning
• consistency
• expertise
• fit with the statutory or regulatory text.

For a plan fiduciary, the practical approach is less theoretical:

use the bulletin to understand DOL's view, then prove the plan's conduct satisfies the actual law.

Does Codification Increase Practical Importance?

Yes, in one sense.

Part 2509 makes the interpretation:

• easy to locate
• durable
• visible in standard regulatory research.

That can lead lawyers, courts and compliance professionals to cite it frequently.

But codification also creates the main risk INV-179 is designed to prevent:

assuming location determines legal character.

The title of Part 2509 says what the documents are:

Interpretive Bulletins.^[1]

The substance confirms it.

What Does the 2025 Cleanup Tell Us About DOL's Own View of Part 2509?

The 2025 removal rule is useful because DOL explained why it was cleaning the Part rather than simply deleting old text.^[2]

The Department described the early bulletins as documents issued shortly after ERISA to provide a concise and ready reference to its interpretations.^[2]

It then distinguished among three reasons an old bulletin can become unnecessary.

Later agency guidance overtakes it

That was DOL's explanation for IB 75-2.^[2]

The prohibited-transaction problem still exists.

The original bulletin was no longer the best concise reference.

A substantive regulation replaces it

That was the clearest problem with IB 75-6.^[2]

Once DOL had adopted a regulation governing the same expense-advance issue, maintaining duplicate standards in two CFR locations created needless uncertainty.

The legal allocation of authority changes

IB 75-10 reflected the original overlap between DOL and IRS responsibility.

Reorganization Plan No. 4 later changed that institutional structure.^[2]

The special 1975 reliance device lost its reason for existing.

Those three categories create a useful maintenance framework for any guidance library:

superseded by guidance → replaced by regulation → overtaken by structural legal change.

A plan can use the same framework when reviewing:

• advisory opinions
• FABs
• Technical Releases
• old compliance manuals.

Should a Committee Treat a Surviving Bulletin as a Safe Harbor?

Usually not unless the bulletin and underlying law actually create that result.

IB 96-1, for example, identifies categories of information that DOL does not treat as investment advice when the stated conditions are met.^[8]

That can be highly protective.

But it does not mean every communication near one of those categories receives automatic immunity.

The committee still should test:

• content
• personalization
• references to specific plan investments
• provider compensation
• whether the tool steers a participant toward an action
• current fiduciary regulation.

The same caution applies to fiduciary Q&A.

IB 75-8 can explain why a ministerial function does not create fiduciary status.^[5]

It cannot rescue a provider that has moved beyond ministerial work and now exercises discretion.

The word:

bulletin

does not create a safe harbor by itself.

What If a Bulletin and a Later Source Point in Different Directions?

Use the later controlling source.

The conflict can arise several ways.

Later statute

Congress changes ERISA.

The old interpretation must be read through the amended text.

Later substantive regulation

A valid regulation may replace or narrow the old bulletin.

The IB 75-6 history is the clean example.^[2]

Later controlling court decision

A court can reject an agency interpretation or change the legal premise on which it rested.

Later DOL action

DOL can revise, remove or reinstate guidance.

IB 96-1's 2020 reinstatement shows that the agency itself may change the status of a bulletin when the broader regulatory framework changes.^[14]

A good legal memo does not solve these conflicts by counting citations.

It asks which source has controlling legal status today.

The ROIStreet Interpretive Bulletin Validation Test

Find the Part 2509 citation → confirm the section exists in the current eCFR → identify the ERISA statute or substantive regulation being interpreted → read the exact scope language → identify the plan type and transaction covered → separate DOL interpretation from independent legal requirement → check later statutes → check later regulations → check later DOL guidance → check controlling court decisions → verify the bulletin was not removed, replaced or reinstated → compare actual plan facts with the bulletin's assumptions → identify any separate prohibited-transaction exemption needed → document Section 404 prudence and loyalty independently.

A useful current-law question is not:

“Is this in the CFR?”

It is:

“What legal source creates the duty, what does DOL's surviving Interpretive Bulletin say that source means, and has anything happened since issuance that changes the answer?”

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a DOL Interpretive Bulletin?

A published DOL interpretation of ERISA or related regulations. The surviving ERISA Interpretive Bulletins are collected in 29 CFR Part 2509.^[1]

How many sections are currently in Part 2509?

Eleven, as of the current August 2026 eCFR.^[1]

Are Interpretive Bulletins regulations?

They are codified in a CFR part, but their stated role is interpretive. Interpretive rules do not independently operate as substantive law.^[12][13]

Does that mean plans can ignore them?

No. They express DOL's interpretation of ERISA and can be highly important to compliance, enforcement analysis and litigation.^[1]

What is IB 75-4?

DOL's interpretation of ERISA Section 410(a) regarding fiduciary indemnification. It distinguishes permissible third-party indemnification that leaves fiduciary liability intact from plan-funded arrangements that effectively eliminate the plan's recovery right.^[3]

What do the two early fiduciary Q&A bulletins cover?

Foundational DOL fiduciary-responsibility Q&A covering issues such as named fiduciaries, investment managers, ministerial functions, board responsibility and reliance on service providers.^[4][5]

Is a recordkeeper always a fiduciary?

No. IB 75-8 explains that purely ministerial functions performed under policies established by others do not by themselves create fiduciary status. Actual authority and discretion matter.^[5]

Is a corporate board always the 401(k) fiduciary?

No. Board members are fiduciaries to the extent they exercise fiduciary functions, such as selection and retention of plan fiduciaries.^[5]

What does IB 94-3 cover?

In-kind contributions. It explains, among other points, when property contributed to satisfy a cash-measured contribution obligation can constitute a prohibited transaction.^[6]

Does fair value make an in-kind contribution automatically permissible?

No. Prohibited-transaction status and Section 404 prudence are separate issues.^[6]

What is IB 96-1?

DOL's participant investment-education bulletin. It identifies four broad educational categories that do not, when the bulletin's conditions are met, constitute investment advice merely because they are provided to participants.^[8]

What are the four IB 96-1 categories?

Plan information, general financial and investment information, asset-allocation models and interactive investment materials.^[8]

Is every investment calculator nonfiduciary education?

No. The content, personalization, recommendation and relationship still matter under current fiduciary law.^[8][14]

Was IB 96-1 ever removed?

It was removed as part of the 2016 fiduciary-rule framework and reinstated in 2020 after that rule was vacated.^[14]

What is IB 99-1?

DOL guidance on employer payroll-deduction IRA programs and when employer involvement does or does not create an ERISA pension plan.^[9]

What is IB 2015-02?

DOL guidance on state programs that sponsor or facilitate ERISA-covered retirement arrangements and related ERISA preemption principles.^[10]

What is IB 2022-01?

DOL's current Interpretive Bulletin on independence of the qualified public accountant retained to audit an employee benefit plan.^[11]

Can the plan auditor maintain the plan accounting records?

IB 2022-01 identifies maintenance of plan financial records by the accountant or accounting-firm member as inconsistent with the independence DOL requires.^[11]

Is IB 95-1 the 401(k) annuity-selection rule?

No. IB 95-1 addresses defined benefit plans and expressly points individual account plans to 29 CFR 2550.404a-4.^[7]

Which Interpretive Bulletins did DOL remove in 2025?

IB 75-2, IB 75-6 and IB 75-10.^[2]

When did those removals become effective?

September 2, 2025.^[2]

Why was IB 75-6 removed?

DOL said the later expense-advance regulation had already replaced it.^[2]

Why was IB 75-10 removed?

The later allocation of interpretive jurisdiction between DOL and IRS made its early special reliance framework unnecessary.^[2]

Did removal retroactively erase those bulletins?

No. DOL expressly said the removal was prospective and did not affect their legal effectiveness before the effective date.^[2]

Can I still find a removed bulletin online?

Often yes in historical databases and Federal Register archives. Availability does not make it current Part 2509 authority.

Is an Interpretive Bulletin the same as an advisory opinion?

No. Advisory opinions are Procedure 76-1 responses tied to described parties and facts. Interpretive Bulletins state broader DOL interpretations.^[1]

Is it the same as a Field Assistance Bulletin?

No. FABs are field-enforcement guidance. Part 2509 Interpretive Bulletins are a separate, codified interpretive category.

Can an Interpretive Bulletin create a prohibited-transaction exemption?

No. Exemptive relief must come from valid statutory or administrative exemption authority.^[6]

What is the safest way to use an old Interpretive Bulletin?

Confirm it still appears in current Part 2509, identify the underlying statute or regulation, and check later legislation, regulations, DOL guidance and court decisions before applying it.

Sources & References

1. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 29 CFR Part 2509 — Interpretive Bulletins Relating to ERISA — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XXV/subchapter-A/part-2509
2. U.S. Department of Labor / Federal Register: Removal of Interpretive Bulletins Relating to ERISA, 90 FR 28004 (July 1, 2025) — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/01/2025-11613/removal-of-interpretive-bulletins-relating-to-the-employee-retirement-income-security-act-of-1974
3. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.75-4 — Indemnification of Fiduciaries — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.75-4
4. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.75-5 — Fiduciary Responsibility Q&A — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.75-5
5. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.75-8 — Fiduciary Responsibility Q&A — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.75-8
6. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.94-3 — In-Kind Contributions — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.94-3
7. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.95-1 — Defined Benefit Annuity Provider Selection — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.95-1
8. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.96-1 — Participant Investment Education — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.96-1
9. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.99-1 — Payroll Deduction IRAs — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.99-1
10. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.2015-02 — State Savings Programs — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.2015-02
11. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations / Legal Information Institute: 29 CFR §2509.2022-01 — Plan Auditor Independence — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2509.2022-01
12. Legal Information Institute / U.S. Code: 5 U.S.C. §553 — Rule Making — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553
13. Supreme Court of the United States / Legal Information Institute: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-1041
14. U.S. Department of Labor / Federal Register: Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice: Notice of Court Vacatur and Reinstatement of IB 96-1, 85 FR 40589 (July 7, 2020) — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/07/2020-14260/conflict-of-interest-rule-retirement-investment-advice-notice-of-court-vacatur

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about 401(k) fiduciary duties, ERISA interpretation and Department of Labor guidance. This article is not legal, fiduciary, tax, investment, audit, regulatory or plan-administration advice. Interpretive Bulletins must be read with the current statute, current substantive regulations, later DOL guidance, applicable prohibited-transaction exemptions and controlling court decisions. A bulletin's continued presence in Part 2509 does not eliminate the need to analyze the plan's actual facts. A historical bulletin that has been removed, replaced or superseded should not be presented as current authority. DOL interpretation does not substitute for a fiduciary's independent duties under ERISA Section 404.

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.