What Is OIRA Review for a DOL 401(k) Rule?

A Reginfo review record tells you a DOL draft has reached a serious regulatory checkpoint. It does not tell you the draft is law.

That distinction is easy to lose because Reginfo can show:

• the DOL rule title
• RIN
• rulemaking stage
• received date
• economic significance
• review status
• conclusion.

A status such as:

Consistent with Change

sounds final.

It is not an effective date.

It means OIRA completed Executive Branch review of the draft after changes were made during the review process.^[1][7]

The agency still has to take the next legal step.

For a proposal, that usually means publication in the Federal Register.

For a final rule, legal effect still depends on:

• publication
• effective date
• applicability date
• later litigation
• current CFR status.

What Is OIRA?

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is part of the Office of Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the President.^[1]

Congress established OIRA through the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Its responsibilities include:

• regulatory review
• information-collection review
• information policy
• statistical policy
• privacy-related government policy.^[1]

The regulatory-review role most relevant here comes from:

Executive Order 12866.^[1][2]

That order created the modern centralized Executive Branch process for reviewing significant regulatory actions before agencies publish them.

Does OIRA Replace DOL as the Rulemaking Agency?

No.

EBSA develops and issues ERISA regulations within DOL's statutory authority.

OIRA coordinates Executive Branch review.

That can involve:

• OMB
• other federal agencies
• policy offices
• economic analysis
• legal coordination
• evaluation of alternatives.^[1][2]

Executive Order 12866 also reaffirms the primacy of federal agencies in regulatory decision-making.^[1][2]

The correct relationship is:

EBSA owns the rulemaking. OIRA reviews the significant draft.

OIRA is not a second Department of Labor.

Why Does Centralized Review Happen Before Publication?

Centralized review is meant to catch problems before the government commits to public regulatory text.

OIRA says the process helps ensure that significant rules:

• consider alternatives
• analyze benefits and costs
• account for public comments at final stage
• coordinate with other agencies
• avoid conflicting or duplicative policy
• reflect applicable presidential priorities.^[1]

That can change the draft.

It can also slow publication.

Both are features of the process.

Which DOL Actions Reach OIRA?

Not every agency action.

Executive Order 12866 focuses the process on:

significant regulatory actions.^[1][2]

Significance can arise from:

• economic impact
• conflict with another agency
• material budgetary effects
• important legal or policy issues.^[1][2]

Reginfo separately identifies actions considered:

economically significant.

Current pending-review pages use the familiar threshold of an annual economic effect of:

$100 million or more

or specified material effects on the economy or public interests.^[6]

That threshold needs a freshness note in 2026.

Why Do Some Reginfo Pages Still Say $200 Million?

Because parts of Reginfo's FAQ have not fully caught up with the current executive-order history.

Executive Order 14094 raised the principal economic threshold to $200 million in 2023.

President Trump rescinded EO 14094 on:

January 20, 2025.^[3]

Current Reginfo pending-review pages again describe economically significant actions using a:

$100 million

threshold.^[6]

Meanwhile, some FAQ text still references the rescinded EO 14094 framework.^[1]

That is a useful research warning.

A government website can contain:

• current transaction data
• stale explanatory text

on the same domain.

Check the governing executive order and current review record.

Did Rescinding EO 14094 End Centralized Review?

No.

EO 14094 amended Executive Order 12866.

It did not create OIRA review from scratch.

After the rescission, agencies continued conducting review under:

Executive Order 12866.^[2][3]

Current 2025-2026 Federal Register preambles continue identifying actions as significant or nonsignificant under EO 12866.

Reginfo is still actively publishing:

• pending reviews
• concluded reviews
• meeting records.^[6]

The system remains live.

What Did Executive Order 14192 Add?

President Trump issued:

Executive Order 14192 — Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

on January 31, 2025.^[4]

OMB later issued implementation guidance.^[5]

Among other things, the order established:

• a regulatory offset framework
• a ten-for-one identification requirement for covered new regulations
• regulatory-cost controls
• deregulatory designations.^[4][5]

This sits alongside the continuing EO 12866 review process.

That is why current Unified Agenda entries can now display an:

EO 14192 Designation

such as:

• Regulatory
• Deregulatory
• Fully or Partially Exempt.^[8][11]

EO 14192 did not replace the APA.

It changed Executive Branch regulatory-management requirements.

What Does the Reginfo Record Show?

A review page can show:

• RIN
• agency
• title
• stage
• received date
• status
• legal deadline
• economic significance
• conclusion date
• conclusion action.^[6][7]

That makes Reginfo unusually useful for monitoring drafts before publication.

If a rule is:

Pending Review

the page can prove that OIRA has received a draft.

It cannot prove the wording of the final public document.

The draft may still change.

What Does "Pending Review" Mean?

It means OIRA is still reviewing the agency submission.

That can involve:

• OIRA analysis
• interagency comments
• agency revisions
• meetings with outside parties
• coordination over costs, benefits and legal issues.

The rule has not yet received a concluded-review status.

If the action is a proposed rule and no NPRM has published yet, the public should not invent its text from:

• agenda abstract
• press reports
• meeting materials
• stakeholder speculation.

The draft is still inside Executive Branch review.

AC37 Is a Live 2026 Example

RIN:

1210-AC37

covers DOL's current project on:

Loyalty and the Exclusive Purpose Rule in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.^[10][11]

OIRA received the proposed rule on:

June 30, 2026.^[10]

As reviewed August 30, Reginfo still shows:

Pending Review.^[6][10]

It also identifies the action as:

Economically Significant: Yes.^[10]

That is valuable current intelligence.

It is not a public proposed regulation yet.

What Can a 401(k) Fiduciary Know From the AC37 Record?

The record supports several conclusions.

DOL has moved beyond a vague agenda idea.

A draft proposed rule exists inside Executive Branch review.

The project is economically significant.

The action concerns investment selection and shareholder rights.

What the record does not establish is the final public text.

The published NPRM could contain:

• revised definitions
• changed examples
• different economic assumptions
• different requests for comment.

review still open means:

watch closely.

Not:

change plan operations now.

How Long Can OIRA Review Take?

Executive Order 12866 generally limits review to:

90 days.^[1][2]

There is no minimum review period.

The review can be extended:

• by the agency head
• or, in specified circumstances, by the OMB Director for a one-time period of up to 30 days.^[1][2]

An agency-head extension can be longer under the order.^[1]

That means:

90 days

is the baseline framework.

It is not an ironclad publication deadline.

A unconcluded status can legitimately last longer.

AC38 Shows a Completed Review Before Publication

RIN:

1210-AC38

is the 2026 alternative-investments project.^[7][8]

OIRA received the proposed rule:

January 13, 2026.^[7]

Review concluded:

March 24, 2026.^[7]

Conclusion:

Consistent with Change.^[7]

The NPRM then published in the Federal Register:

March 31, 2026.^[8][9]

That sequence is unusually clean.

Why Does the Seven-Day Gap Matter?

Because it shows three different events.

January 13

OIRA receives the draft.

March 24

Executive Branch review concludes.

March 31

DOL publishes the actual proposed rule.

Only the third event gives the public the official NPRM text and comment instructions.^[9]

A research note that calls March 24:

the proposal date

would be wrong.

OIRA conclusion and publication are separate steps.

What Does "Consistent with Change" Mean?

The safest reading is narrow.

OIRA completed review after changes were made to the agency's draft.^[7]

It does not tell the public:

• how many words changed
• which office requested each change
• whether changes were legal, economic or policy-driven
• whether OIRA endorses every provision
• whether the rule will survive litigation.

The conclusion code is a process result.

Do not inflate it into a substantive approval opinion.

Is "Consistent with Change" the Same as Presidential Approval?

No.

Executive Branch review is intended to align significant rules with applicable presidential and government-wide regulatory policies.^[1][2]

But OIRA's conclusion is not:

• a statute
• a court judgment
• an ERISA exemption
• a Federal Register final rule.

DOL still signs and publishes its own action.

The legal authority must still come from the statutes DOL administers.

Can OIRA Return a Rule?

Yes.

OIRA can return a draft to the agency for reconsideration.^[1]

Reginfo explains that a return can occur when concerns exist about:

• legal compatibility
• analytical quality
• justification
• Executive Order 12866 principles
• presidential priorities
• conflicts with other agency actions.^[1]

A return does not necessarily mean:

OMB opposes the policy forever.

It means the draft needs more work before proceeding.

The agency can reconsider and potentially resubmit it.

Can DOL Withdraw a Draft From OIRA?

Yes.

An agency can withdraw an action during review.^[1]

That can mean:

• reconsideration
• redrafting
• changed priority
• abandonment
• later resubmission.

A withdrawal is not the same as OIRA rejecting the rule.

It is an agency decision to remove the submission from review.

If a draft disappears from active review, search the conclusion or withdrawal record before guessing why.

Can the Same RIN Go Through OIRA More Than Once?

Absolutely.

A major rule may have separate review at:

• proposed stage
• final stage.

The Retirement Security Rule is a strong example.

RIN:

1210-AC02

entered OIRA for its proposed rule on:

September 8, 2023.^[12]

That review concluded:

October 30, 2023 — that conclusion code.^[12]

DOL then published the NPRM.

Months later, the final draft entered OIRA again.

What Happened at the Final Retirement Security Stage?

OIRA received the final-rule draft:

March 8, 2024.^[13]

Review concluded:

April 10, 2024.^[13]

Again, the result was:

the same conclusion.^[13]

DOL published the final rule later that month.

That proves a RIN does not represent one single OIRA event.

The same regulatory project can have multiple review records.

The Retirement Security Rule Also Shows OIRA's Limit

The 2024 final rule later faced federal litigation.

Courts stayed the rule.

Final judgments ultimately vacated it.^[15]

DOL restored the prior five-part fiduciary framework in 2026.

That history defeats a dangerous shortcut:

"OIRA cleared the rule, therefore the rule was legally valid."

OIRA review and judicial review ask different questions.

OIRA cannot immunize a regulation from:

• statutory challenge
• APA challenge
• constitutional challenge
• later vacatur.

What Are EO 12866 Meetings?

OIRA will meet with outside parties interested in a regulatory action under review.^[1]

Potential participants can include:

• businesses
• associations
• worker groups
• consumer organizations
• state or local governments
• other interested parties.^[1]

Reginfo publishes meeting information.

The record can include:

• meeting date
• requestor
• attendees
• documents submitted.^[14]

That creates a transparency layer before publication or finalization.

The Retirement Security Rule Had Extensive OIRA Meetings

Reginfo's meeting search for RIN 1210-AC02 shows dozens of meeting records during the rulemaking.^[14]

Those meetings included outside stakeholders and government participants.

Submitted materials are often linked.

That makes OIRA meeting records useful for understanding:

• lobbying arguments
• industry concerns
• participant-protection arguments
• analytical disputes.

But those materials remain stakeholder submissions.

They are not OIRA regulations.

Is an OIRA Meeting the Same as an NPRM Comment?

No.

OIRA itself says the best way to participate in proposed rulemaking is to submit comments directly to the agency during the proposed-rule stage.^[1]

The public docket has a different function.

A docket comment becomes part of the agency's notice-and-comment rulemaking record.

An EO 12866 meeting is part of centralized executive review transparency.

A stakeholder may use both.

One does not substitute for the other.

Why Attribution Matters With OIRA Materials

Suppose a trade association gives OIRA a slide saying:

"This proposal will cost plans $2 billion."

A later memo says:

"OMB estimates the proposal costs $2 billion."

That may be false.

The source could be:

• private stakeholder submission
• not OIRA analysis.

Reginfo's transparency is valuable precisely because it preserves attribution.

Always identify:

who created the document.

Hosting does not transfer authorship.

OIRA Regulatory Review and PRA Review Are Different

This is one of the easiest Reginfo mistakes.

OIRA also reviews federal information collections under the:

Paperwork Reduction Act.^[1]

That process can involve:

• OMB Control Numbers
• Information Collection Requests
• burden hours
• forms
• disclosures
• public comment on collections.^[1][17]

A rule can trigger:

EO 12866 regulatory review

and a separate:

PRA information-collection review.

Both can appear on Reginfo.

They are not the same approval.

AC38 Has Both Types of OIRA Record

The alternative-investments proposal illustrates the distinction.

Its EO 12866 review:

concluded March 24, 2026.^[7]

DOL published the NPRM March 31.^[9]

A separate new information-collection request associated with AC38 was submitted to OIRA on:

March 31, 2026.^[17]

The ICR estimates:

• responses
• time burden
• information-collection details.^[17]

Same underlying rulemaking.

Different legal review systems.

Why Can't a RIN and OMB Control Number Be Used Interchangeably?

Because they identify different things.

RIN

Tracks a regulatory action.

OMB Control Number

Identifies an approved federal information collection under the PRA.^[1]

A proposed rule can have:

• one RIN
• one or more information collections
• an ICR reference number
• later OMB Control Number treatment.

Mixing them can create a false statement such as:

"OIRA approved the regulation because the paperwork collection was approved."

PRA approval is not substantive rule approval.

Centralized Review vs Unified Agenda

INV-196 covers the Unified Agenda.

The distinction is:

Agenda: planning record.

OIRA review: a specific draft is actually in centralized Executive Branch review.

An agenda entry can exist:

• months
• years

before OIRA receives anything.

AC37 shows the transition.

Its 2026 agenda forecast a proposed-stage rulemaking.^[11]

Reginfo then shows an actual OIRA receipt date of June 30.^[10]

The second event is stronger evidence that a real draft has advanced.

Centralized Review vs Federal Register

OIRA sees drafts before the public does.

The Federal Register publishes agency actions.

That makes the source sequence:

agenda → OIRA draft review → Federal Register publication.

Not every rule follows every step identically.

But for a significant EBSA proposal, this is a useful tracking model.

The public should treat the Federal Register document as the official proposed or final agency text.

Centralized Review vs Current CFR

The CFR answers a different question:

What regulation is codified now?

OIRA can be reviewing a proposed change to a regulation that remains fully operative in its current form.

That is exactly the situation with AC37.

A pending proposed revision to:

29 CFR 2550.404a-1

does not suspend the current rule.

A committee should continue applying current law until valid later action changes it.

Worked Example: open review Becomes a Fake Proposal

Vendor newsletter says:

"DOL proposed a new exclusive-purpose investment rule on June 30."

The cited source is the AC37 OIRA page.

Wrong.

June 30 is:

OIRA received date.^[10]

As of August 30, the action remains pending.^[10]

A correct statement is:

"DOL submitted a draft proposed rule to OIRA on June 30; the draft remains under review and has not yet been published as an NPRM."

That one sentence preserves the legal status.

Worked Example: March 24 Becomes the Safe-Harbor Date

Plan committee studies AC38.

Minutes say:

"DOL's alternative-investment safe harbor was approved March 24, 2026."

That date is the OIRA conclusion date.^[7]

The NPRM did not publish until March 31.^[9]

More importantly, the safe harbor remains proposed.

Nothing about OIRA clearance converts it into current fiduciary protection.

The committee can study the proposal.

It cannot claim the proposed safe harbor.

Worked Example: OIRA Meeting Becomes Agency Evidence

Industry group meets with OIRA and submits cost projections.

Consultant later cites the uploaded deck as:

"OMB analysis."

That misattributes the source.

Correct:

"The industry group submitted the estimate during an EO 12866 meeting."

If OIRA or DOL later adopts the number in its own analysis, cite that separate agency document.

Worked Example: PRA Review Is Called Rule Approval

AC38 has a new information-collection submission on Reginfo.^[17]

Compliance memo says:

"OMB approved DOL's alternative-investment rule through the PRA."

Wrong category.

The PRA process addresses federal collection of information.

The proposed fiduciary rule has its own:

• legal authority
• EO review
• APA rulemaking
• public comment process.

The same proposal can trigger both without merging them.

Worked Example: OIRA Clearance Is Used Against Court Vacatur

Litigation memo says:

"The Retirement Security Rule survived OIRA review, so the court should not have vacated it."

That misunderstands institutional roles.

OIRA reviewed the draft inside the Executive Branch.^[12][13]

The courts reviewed legal validity.

Those are different functions.

A rule can be:

• carefully reviewed
• economically analyzed
• interagency coordinated

and still exceed statutory authority or violate the APA.

OIRA clearance is not a judicial safe harbor.

What Should a 401(k) Regulatory Tracker Record?

For important RINs, add OIRA fields to the agenda tracker:

• RIN
• OIRA status
• received date
• stage
• economically significant yes/no
• conclusion date
• conclusion action
• EO 12866 meetings
• Federal Register publication date
• comment deadline
• final-rule review
• effective date
• litigation status
• current CFR.

This produces a useful timeline.

It also prevents a single status word from doing too much work.

A Practical Source Matrix

The RIN is the thread.

It is not the answer.

Reginfo Review Validation Checklist

Before citing an OIRA record, verify:

RIN

Is it the correct regulatory project?

Stage

Is OIRA reviewing:

• proposed rule
• final rule
• notice
• IFR?

Status

Is the review:

• pending
• concluded
• withdrawn
• returned?

Dates

Separate:

• OIRA received
• OIRA concluded
• Federal Register published
• effective.

What Did OIRA Conclude?

If the record says:

Consistent with Change,

do not speculate about the exact changes without evidence.

Meetings

Who submitted each document?

Agenda

What did the agency forecast before the review?

Public action

Did the draft actually publish?

PRA

Is there a separate information-collection review?

Current law

Did any regulation or exemption actually become operative?

Those checks are enough to turn Reginfo from a status dashboard into reliable legal research.

Fast Answers

What is OIRA?

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB.

Why does OIRA examine DOL rules?

Executive Order 12866 assigns OIRA centralized review of significant regulatory actions before publication.^[1][2]

Is centralized review itself rulemaking?

No.

Does pending status mean DOL has published a proposal?

No.

What does "that review outcome" mean?

OIRA concluded review after changes to the draft. It is not an effective date or legal safe harbor.

When did AC38 enter OIRA?

January 13, 2026.^[7]

When did that review conclude?

March 24, 2026.^[7]

When did the NPRM publish?

March 31, 2026.^[8][9]

What is AC37's status?

As reviewed August 30, 2026, its proposed rule remains pending at OIRA after receipt on June 30.^[10]

Can the same RIN be reviewed more than once?

Yes. The Retirement Security Rule was reviewed at both proposed and final stages.^[12][13]

Does OIRA clearance prevent later court vacatur?

No. The Retirement Security Rule is the direct example.^[15]

Can outside groups meet with OIRA?

Yes. OIRA maintains public meeting logs and posts submitted materials.^[1][14]

Does an OIRA meeting replace an NPRM comment?

No. OIRA says the best route for proposed-rule participation is still the agency's public comment process.^[1]

Is EO 12866 regulatory review the same as PRA review?

No.

Is a RIN the same as an OMB Control Number?

No.

Is the $200 million EO 14094 threshold still current?

No. EO 14094 was rescinded in January 2025; current Reginfo review pages use the $100 million benchmark.^[3][6]

What is the safest one-sentence rule?

Use OIRA records to track where a DOL draft is in Executive Branch review; use published legal sources to decide what a 401(k) plan must do.

Sources & References

1. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: Frequently Asked Questions — OIRA — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp
2. The White House / Federal Register: Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning and Review — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1993/10/04/93-24585/regulatory-planning-and-review
3. The White House / Federal Register: Executive Order 14148 — Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, January 20, 2025 — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/28/2025-01901/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions
4. The White House: Executive Order 14192 — Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, January 31, 2025 — https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-prosperity-through-deregulation/
5. Office of Management and Budget: M-25-20 — Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, March 26, 2025 — https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-20-Guidance-Implementing-Section-3-of-Executive-Order-14192-Titled-Unleashing-Prosperity-Through-Deregulation.pdf
6. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: Executive Order Submissions Under Review — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoReviewSearch
7. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: OIRA Conclusion — RIN 1210-AC38 — Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=1242111
8. Reginfo.gov — DOL/EBSA: RIN 1210-AC38 — Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?RIN=1210-AC38&pubId=202510
9. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration / GovInfo: Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives — Proposed Rule, 91 FR 16088, March 31, 2026 — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-03-31/pdf/2026-06178.pdf
10. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: Pending OIRA Review — RIN 1210-AC37 — Loyalty and the Exclusive Purpose Rule in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=1449664
11. Reginfo.gov — DOL/EBSA: RIN 1210-AC37 — Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?RIN=1210-AC37&pubId=202510
12. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: OIRA Conclusion — RIN 1210-AC02 — Proposed Retirement Security Rule — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=334761
13. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: OIRA Conclusion — RIN 1210-AC02 — Final Retirement Security Rule — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=441811
14. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: EO 12866 Meetings — RIN 1210-AC02 — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eom12866SearchResults?pubId=202210&rin=1210-AC02&viewRule=true
15. U.S. Department of Labor — Employee Benefits Security Administration: Retirement Security Rule — Court Vacatur Resources — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/erisa/retirement-security
16. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: OIRA Conclusion — Default Electronic Disclosures by Employee Pension Benefit Plans Under ERISA — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=130396
17. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs / Reginfo.gov: AC38 Information Collection Request — 202603-1210-007 — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202603-1210-007

Educational Disclaimer

ROIStreet publishes educational content about 401(k) plans, ERISA, Department of Labor rulemaking, OIRA review, OMB, Reginfo.gov, Executive Order 12866 and federal regulatory process. This article is not legal, fiduciary, tax, investment, regulatory, lobbying or plan-administration advice. OIRA review is an Executive Branch review process and does not itself create, amend, suspend or repeal a 401(k) legal obligation. Current compliance should be verified against operative statutes, published Federal Register actions, current CFR text, valid exemptions, agency guidance and judicial decisions. Pending-review status, conclusion codes, meeting materials and regulatory-analysis records should be attributed and interpreted according to their actual procedural role.

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.