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

An RFI asks what the agency should know before it decides what to do.

That is the cleanest way to distinguish it from a proposed rule.

The Employee Benefits Security Administration uses this format when it wants:

• facts
• data
• operational experience
• legal views
• cost information
• participant perspectives
• possible alternatives

before committing to a specific regulatory path.^[1][2]

The document can be important.

It can foreshadow years of retirement-policy work.

It can attract detailed submissions from employers, recordkeepers, investment firms, participant advocates and individual workers.

It still does not change a 401(k) plan's legal obligations merely by asking questions.

RFI and NPRM Solve Different Problems

A notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, tells the public what the agency proposes to do.

The National Archives describes an NPRM as a document that:

• announces possible changes to the CFR
• sets out proposed regulatory text or describes the proposal
• solicits comment
• begins the APA notice-and-comment rulemaking process.^[7]

An RFI is earlier and less committed.

It asks:

What problem exists?

How common is it?

What data should the agency use?

What alternatives deserve consideration?

What would implementation cost?

Those questions can help produce a later proposal.

They are not the proposal.

Why Does the Federal Register Cause Confusion?

Because RFIs can appear in the same federal publication system used for rules.

The January 2024 retirement reporting-and-disclosure document appeared in the Federal Register with:

• agency names
• CFR parts
• RINs
• a comment deadline
• a public docket.^[1]

A reader scanning the page could easily think:

"DOL is proposing a new disclosure rule."

The document's ACTION line says otherwise:

Request for information.^[1]

That label matters.

The agencies were developing a public record for a review required by SECURE 2.0.

They were not issuing new regulatory text.

Does Placement Under "Proposed Rules" Make an RFI a Proposed Rule?

No.

Federal Register document organization can include preliminary and miscellaneous rulemaking material around the proposed-rule process.^[7]

The legal function of the document matters more than a broad section heading.

For an NPRM, APA Section 553 requires general notice of the contemplated rulemaking and identifies the information that notice must contain.^[6]

An RFI can help an agency decide whether and how to reach that stage.

The safe reading sequence is:

ACTION label → summary → legal authority → questions asked → proposed text, if any.

If there is no proposed regulatory command, do not invent one.

What Was the 2024 SECURE 2.0 Section 319 RFI?

Congress directed the Labor Department, Treasury and PBGC to review the effectiveness of retirement-plan reporting and disclosure requirements and consult with participant and employer representatives.^[1][4][15]

The agencies responded with a January 2024 information-gathering notice.^[1]

Its purpose was to create a record for evaluating whether existing requirements could be:

• consolidated
• simplified
• standardized
• improved.^[1]

The agencies wanted to reduce unnecessary compliance burden while improving whether participants actually:

• receive information
• access it
• understand it
• retain it
• use it to monitor plans and prepare for retirement.^[1]

That is policy review.

Nothing in the RFI changed an SPD deadline, QDIA notice rule, benefit-statement requirement or 404a-5 disclosure obligation.

Why Were There 24 Questions?

Because the agencies were testing the system rather than one narrow rule.

The RFI asked about issues including:^[1][2]

• how many notices participants receive
• whether disclosures are too frequent
• whether information is understandable
• non-English-language access
• electronic versus paper delivery
• how plans obtain current contact information
• participant engagement
• plan reporting burden
• agency assistance
• standardization
• consolidation.

Some questions contained multiple subparts.

The breadth is evidence of early-stage policy development.

An NPRM usually has a more defined regulatory architecture.

Why Did the Agencies Mostly Exclude Form 5500 From the Main Focus?

Because Form 5500 already has a recurring review process.

The 2024 notice says the agencies wanted commenters to focus primarily on reporting requirements beyond Form 5500, while acknowledging the annual report's importance.^[1]

That is another sign the document was framing a research record.

It was deciding where public input would add the most value.

The agencies were not reopening every retirement-reporting rule at once.

What Happened to the Comment Deadline?

The original comment period was extended by 30 days.

The final deadline became:

May 22, 2024.^[3]

That extension did not change the substance of ERISA.

It changed the time available to participate in the policy record.

This distinction sounds basic but matters:

comment deadline is not compliance effective date.

RFIs often contain dates that matter to commenters, not to ordinary plan operations.

Who Can Comment?

Potentially almost anyone with relevant information.

DOL's comment system accepts submissions from:

• individuals
• employers
• associations
• service providers
• professional firms
• advocacy groups
• other stakeholders.^[5]

DOL says submissions are public records and generally are posted online, subject to its posting and privacy practices.^[5]

That openness is deliberate.

The agency wants competing views in the record.

Does a Submission Posted on DOL's Website Become DOL Guidance?

No.

The hosting agency is not the author.

One submission can say:

electronic delivery should be expanded

while another argues:

paper delivery should remain central.

Both can appear in the same docket.

The existence of opposing submissions proves why attribution matters.

A research memo should say:

"Commenter X argued..."

not:

"DOL says..."

unless DOL later says it in its own document.

Does Anonymous Commentary Count as Part of the Record?

Yes.

DOL says commenters are encouraged to identify themselves, but anonymous comments can be accepted and posted.^[5]

Identity affects how a researcher evaluates:

• expertise
• incentives
• representativeness
• data quality.

It does not automatically determine whether the submission exists in the public record.

A participant describing actual disclosure behavior may supply useful operational evidence even without institutional credentials.

The agency decides what weight to give it.

RFI Questions Do Not Reveal a Final Agency Decision

An agency may ask:

Should plans be allowed to consolidate notices?

That does not mean DOL has decided:

plans should consolidate notices.

The agency may be testing:

• benefits
• risks
• legal constraints
• alternatives.

Some questions deliberately probe positions the agency may reject.

Treating the question as a hidden policy announcement defeats the purpose of asking it.

Worked Example: Vendor Treats a Question as a New Requirement

A vendor alert says:

"DOL now expects all retirement notices to be consolidated because the Section 319 RFI asks about consolidation."

That is unsupported.

The RFI asks whether consolidation could improve effectiveness.^[1]

A plan's current disclosure obligations remain governed by existing law.

Correct operational response:

track the issue; do not eliminate separate notices unless current law permits it.

Policy anticipation should not become premature noncompliance.

Can an RFI Influence a Later NPRM?

Yes.

The February 2026 paper-statement NPRM provides unusually direct evidence.^[8]

That proposal implements SECURE 2.0's paper pension-benefit-statement provisions.

In its background, DOL discusses an August 2023 RFI that asked questions about implementation of the paper-statement requirement.^[8][10]

The 2026 NPRM says:

• some suggestions were beyond the statutory directive
• other suggestions are addressed in the proposed framework.^[8]

That is exactly how an RFI is supposed to work.

The submissions informed the agency's thinking.

The legal proposal came later.

The 2026 NPRM Also Uses Docket Data in Its Economic Analysis

The paper-statement NPRM goes further.

Its regulatory impact analysis cites a Vanguard comment submitted in response to the 2023 RFI.^[8]

DOL uses the submission's electronic-delivery data as support for an assumption about participant behavior, while comparing that information with a prior agency estimate.^[8]

That is a powerful research example.

A stakeholder submission can influence:

• assumptions
• cost estimates
• design choices
• agency explanation.

The submission still does not become regulation.

Does DOL's Citation Mean Vanguard's Entire Submission Was Adopted?

No.

Agency citation is proposition-specific.

If DOL uses one statistic, the sound conclusion is:

DOL considered that statistic relevant to this assumption.

It does not prove:

• DOL adopted every recommendation in the letter
• the commenter controls the final rule
• the statistic can never be challenged
• the proposal will survive unchanged.

Any final rule may revise assumptions after the next comment round.

Rulemaking remains iterative.

How Does Early-Stage Input Differ From NPRM Comments?

The audience and record may overlap.

The question being answered is different.

Early-stage submission

Often responds to:

• whether action is needed
• possible approaches
• market data
• implementation experience
• policy alternatives.

NPRM submission

Responds to an actual proposed regulatory framework.

That gives the NPRM commenter something more concrete to attack or support:

• proposed definitions
• specific conditions
• regulatory text
• effective dates
• cost assumptions.

The earlier record can be broad.

The NPRM record is usually more legally focused.

Can a Comment Become More Important Years Later?

Yes.

A strong submission can supply evidence an agency lacks.

That data can later reappear in:

• a preamble
• regulatory impact analysis
• Technical Release
• report to Congress
• future RFI
• enforcement guidance.

That later use increases the historical importance of the comment.

It does not change authorship.

The comment remains evidence submitted to the agency.

The 2011 Electronic-Disclosure RFI Shows an RFI Can Lead to Interim Guidance

DOL issued an electronic-disclosure RFI in April 2011 with 30 questions.^[11]

The agency sought views on whether and how ERISA disclosures could be distributed electronically while protecting participants who lacked access or preferred paper.^[11]

DOL later reported receiving approximately:

80 comments.^[12]

But it did not immediately solve every issue through a final regulation.

Instead, DOL issued Technical Release 2011-03 and then revised it as Technical Release 2011-03R.^[12]

That release provided an interim enforcement policy for electronic delivery of participant-level fee disclosures while broader policy remained under review.

Why Is That Sequence Important?

Because an RFI does not force one type of next step.

The 2011 sequence was roughly:

policy concern → RFI → comments → interim Technical Release → continued study → later broader rulemaking.

Years later, DOL adopted a new electronic-disclosure final rule for retirement-plan information in 2020.^[13][14]

It would be inaccurate to say:

"The 2011 RFI created the 2020 safe harbor."

The RFI helped develop the policy record.

The legal safe harbor came from later rulemaking.

Can an RFI Lead to No Rule at All?

Yes.

Agencies can conclude that:

• no change is warranted
• more information is needed
• statutory authority is limited
• legislation has changed the issue
• another agency is better positioned
• costs exceed benefits
• priorities have shifted.

The inquiry is not a promise of future regulation.

It is a tool for reducing uncertainty before a decision.

Sometimes the decision is to stop.

Can Congress Overtake an RFI?

Yes.

Retirement policy does not move through one pipeline.

While DOL studies an issue:

• Congress can legislate
• courts can invalidate a related rule
• Treasury or IRS can issue guidance
• market practice can change.

That is another reason not to treat an RFI as a forecast with certainty.

The agency is asking questions in a moving legal environment.

What About an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?

An ANPRM is closer to rulemaking than a general information request.

The National Archives describes an advance notice as an early rulemaking document that identifies issues or an anticipated regulatory approach and seeks comment before a specific proposal.^[7]

The boundary can be practical rather than dramatic:

RFI: what should the agency know?

ANPRM: what early regulatory direction should the agency consider?

NPRM: here is the specific regulatory proposal.

Labels and substance both matter.

Where Does APA Notice-and-Comment Fit?

An RFI itself is not a final legislative rule imposing new generally applicable obligations.

APA Section 553 governs notice-and-comment rulemaking and sets requirements for proposed rules.^[6]

An agency may voluntarily use a Federal Register docket and comment process before it proposes binding regulatory text.

That early transparency is useful.

It does not mean the agency has skipped directly to a final rule.

Why Should a 401(k) Fiduciary Read RFIs?

Not to discover today's compliance rule.

To understand tomorrow's pressure points.

An RFI can reveal that DOL is concerned about:

• disclosure fatigue
• retirement income
• electronic delivery
• missing participants
• multiple-employer structures
• investment risk
• service-provider practices.

That can help a committee identify areas likely to receive:

• regulatory attention
• data requests
• vendor product development
• future guidance.

Strategic awareness is useful even before legal change.

What Should a Committee Avoid Doing?

Do not rewrite plan operations around agency questions.

Example:

DOL asks whether annual disclosures should be consolidated.

The committee eliminates a separately required notice immediately.

That is backwards.

The RFI signals:

possible future change.

Current law still says:

what must be furnished now.

The committee should monitor both tracks.

Current Compliance and Future Policy Should Be Separate Workstreams

A clean process has two columns.

Current-law column

Tracks:

• ERISA statute
• current CFR
• current PTEs
• valid court decisions
• current operative guidance.

This determines what the plan does now.

Policy-development column

Tracks:

• RFIs
• Advisory Council reports
• proposed rules
• public comments
• agency agendas
• reports to Congress.

This determines what the plan watches.

Mixing the columns creates either premature compliance changes or missed regulatory preparation.

Worked Example: Committee Changes E-Delivery Because of an RFI

A plan currently satisfies the applicable electronic-delivery safe harbor.

An RFI asks whether more paper notices would improve participant understanding.

The committee decides the electronic safe harbor must be ending and changes its entire delivery system.

There is no legal need to do that solely because of the RFI.

Better response:

• continue satisfying current safe harbor
• preserve delivery data
• monitor proposal stage
• evaluate operational cost if law changes.

That keeps preparation proportional to legal certainty.

Worked Example: Trade-Group Comment Is Quoted as DOL Policy

Consultant memo quotes a recordkeeping trade association submission:

"DOL recognizes disclosure fatigue is severe."

The underlying sentence came from the commenter.

Correct attribution:

"The trade association argued that disclosure fatigue is severe in its Section 319 submission."

If DOL later agrees, cite DOL's later document separately.

Source attribution is part of legal accuracy.

Worked Example: Comment Data Appears in a Proposal

A commenter supplies an electronic-delivery percentage.

DOL later cites it in an NPRM's economic analysis.^[8]

The statistic now has two research uses:

1. evidence of what the commenter reported
2. evidence that DOL considered the data relevant enough to use.

It still does not prove the statistic is a regulatory requirement.

Numbers can influence a rule without becoming rules.

Worked Example: RFI Leads to Interim Policy

DOL receives divergent electronic-delivery comments.

A full regulatory solution will take time.

The agency issues an interim enforcement policy through a Technical Release.^[12]

The compliance question then changes.

Before the release:

RFI = policy-development evidence.

After the release:

Technical Release = separate agency action with its own stated enforcement effect.

The legal effect comes from the later document.

INV-177 covers Technical Releases.

How Should an RFI Be Cited?

Use the exact document.

Good:

"In the 2024 Section 319 RFI, the agencies asked whether retirement disclosures should be consolidated..."

Weak:

"DOL requires consolidated disclosure..."

when the cited source only asks a question.

The verb should match the source:

• asked
• sought input
• requested data
• invited comment
• described concern.

Avoid:

• required
• mandated
• prohibited

unless another authority supplies those verbs.

RFI Validation Checklist

Before relying on an RFI, verify:

Document status

Does the ACTION line say:

• Request for Information
• ANPRM
• proposed rule
• final rule?

Date

Is the document current, historical or superseded?

Question being asked

What exactly is the agency trying to learn?

Current legal baseline

What statute or regulation applies while the agency studies the issue?

Comment record

Whose views are being cited?

Later agency action

Did DOL issue:

• NPRM
• final rule
• Technical Release
• FAB
• advisory opinion
• report?

Legislative change

Did Congress act after the RFI?

Court developments

Did litigation change the surrounding law?

Operational impact

What should be monitored now without changing current compliance prematurely?

That process keeps policy intelligence useful without confusing it with legal authority.

A Practical Source Matrix

The RFI belongs near the beginning of the policy-development chain.

That is where its value is highest.

Fast Answers

Is a DOL RFI a regulation?

No.

Is an RFI a proposed rule?

Not merely because it appears in the Federal Register. Check the ACTION label and whether the agency actually proposes regulatory text.

Does an RFI change current 401(k) duties?

No, unless a separate operative legal source changes them.

Can DOL request comments before it has a proposal?

Yes. That is a core purpose of an RFI.

What did the 2024 Section 319 RFI study?

The effectiveness of retirement-plan reporting and disclosure requirements and possible ways to consolidate, simplify, standardize and improve them.^[1]

How many broad questions did it include?

Twenty-four.^[2]

When did comments close?

May 22, 2024 after a 30-day extension.^[3]

Is a public comment posted on DOL's site DOL guidance?

No. It remains the submitter's statement.

Can DOL use a comment later?

Yes. The 2026 paper-statement NPRM cites earlier RFI submissions and uses comment data in its analysis.^[8]

Does later citation mean the whole comment was adopted?

No.

Can an RFI lead to interim guidance instead of a rule?

Yes. The 2011 electronic-disclosure RFI was followed by Technical Release 2011-03/03R while DOL continued broader policy work.^[11][12]

Does every RFI produce a final rule?

No.

What is the safest one-sentence rule?

Track an RFI for where policy may go; follow current law for what the plan must do now.

Sources & References

1. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration, and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Request for Information — SECURE 2.0 Section 319 — Effectiveness of Reporting and Disclosure Requirements, 89 FR 4215, January 23, 2024 — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-01-23/pdf/FR-2024-01-23.pdf
2. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Department of Labor Issues Joint Request to Help Improve Retirement Plan Benefits Information, January 19, 2024 — https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20240119
3. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Department of Labor Extends Comment Period for Joint Request, April 4, 2024 — https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20240404
4. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/secure-2-0-act-of-2022
5. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Public Comments — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/public-comments
6. National Archives — Office of the Federal Register: Administrative Procedure Act — 5 U.S.C. §553 — https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/553.html
7. National Archives — Office of the Federal Register: Federal Register Tutorial — Proposed Rules and Preliminary Rulemaking Documents — https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/online-html.html
8. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration / Federal Register: Requirement to Provide Paper Statements in Certain Cases — Amendments to Electronic Disclosure Safe Harbors, Proposed Rule, 2026 — https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-03723.pdf
9. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Field Assistance Bulletin 2026-02 — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2026-02
10. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration / Federal Register: Request for Information — SECURE 2.0 Reporting and Disclosure, 88 FR 54511, August 11, 2023 — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/11/2023-17249/request-for-information-secure-20-reporting-and-disclosure
11. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Department Seeks Public Comments on Electronic Disclosure by Employee Benefit Plans, April 6, 2011 — https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20110406-0
12. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Technical Release 2011-03R — Revised Interim Policy on Electronic Disclosure Under 29 CFR 2550.404a-5 — https://www.dol.gov/node/63754
13. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Department Announces Final Electronic Disclosure Rule, May 21, 2020 — https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20200521
14. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Employee Retirement Income Security Act — Rulemaking Resources — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/erisa
15. Internal Revenue Service: IRC Notice and Reporting Requirements Affecting Retirement Plans — https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/irc-notice-and-reporting-requirements-affecting-retirement-plans

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about 401(k) plans, ERISA, Department of Labor rulemaking, Federal Register documents, Requests for Information, public comments and retirement-plan administration. This article is not legal, fiduciary, tax, investment, regulatory, lobbying or plan-administration advice. An RFI can reveal areas under active agency review but ordinarily does not itself amend ERISA, the Code of Federal Regulations, a prohibited-transaction exemption or other operative law. Current compliance should be tested against the statute, current CFR, current exemptions, valid court decisions and other operative authority. Public comments should be attributed to their submitters, and later agency citation of a comment should not be treated as wholesale adoption of the commenter's position.

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.