May 5, 2015

Submitted via email to e-ORI@dol.gov 

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attn: Conflict of Interest Rule

Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

RE: Comment Period for Definition of the Term “Fiduciary,” RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Sir or Madam:

On behalf of the American Benefits Council (the “Council”), I am writing 

today to request an extension of the 75-day comment period with respect to the 

proposed new definition of a fiduciary and the accompanying proposals to add 

two new prohibited transaction exemptions and to modify other exemptions. The 

Council appreciates the importance of this project and wants to ensure that our 

membership has adequate time to fully analyze the impact of the proposed 

guidance and provide the information and input the Department has asked for in 

the reproposal.

The Council is a public policy organization representing principally Fortune 

500 companies and other organizations that assist employers of all sizes in 

providing benefits to employees. Collectively, the Council’s members either 

sponsor directly or provide services to retirement and health plans that cover 

more than 100 million Americans.

The Council’s members have a strong interest in the fiduciary reproposal. A

review of the reproposal since its issuance has revealed that a great deal of new 

work has been done by the Department since the 2010 proposal. The new 

package is significantly longer and more complex than the original proposal and 
2

the 2010 proposal had a longer comment period. In this regard we note that, 

although many positive changes are included in the reproposal – such as 

excepting out from the fiduciary definition certain internal employees providing 

support to fiduciaries – the reproposal represents a fundamental change in a very 

broad regulatory approach to the fiduciary rules, which in turn will have a 

substantial impact on plans and participants and those providing services to 

them. The Council and its members need sufficient time to review and analyze 

the package to ensure that we can provide the Department with the input it has 

requested.

In this context, we ask that the 75-day comment period be extended. Time 

would be beneficial to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of issues that are 

already being identified by Council members. By way of example, the Council 

has begun to receive input on areas that would benefit from refinement and 

additional clarification so that plan sponsors can work effectively with their 

providers to ensure compliance and avoid confusion. Specifically, plan sponsors 

are raising concerns about possible adverse effects on investment assistance and 

education. Additional time for comments would be beneficial to consider the 

impact of the Department’s changes in this area as plan sponsors evaluate these 

and other issues raised in the proposed regulation and exemptions. Likewise, 

additional time would be helpful as we consider the reproposal’s potential 

fiduciary treatment of conversations between employees.

In summary, we believe that time is necessary to ensure that there is careful 

analysis and thought given to the implementation of and compliance with the 

new definition and the proposed exemptions. Indeed, quite often with significant 

changes such as this, plan sponsors find it helpful to wait for service providers to 

raise issues before they respond so that they can better evaluate what steps may 

need to be taken to, for example, restructure their service arrangements. Plan 

sponsors also need to consider how the changes will affect their interactions with 

employees and plan participants and beneficiaries. Service providers, like other 

interested parties, are still reviewing the reproposal in an effort to understand its 

effect on their businesses and what changes will need to be made to comply with 

the reproposal.

We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment. We know that the 

Department is looking for additional information on certain aspects of the 

reproposal and on the reproposal in general and that it is dedicated to getting the 

best possible input it can from plan sponsors, service providers and other 

interested parties. In order for this to occur, the Department needs to provide 

sufficient time for that level of review and consideration of the reproposal to be 

performed. 

We thank you for your consideration of our request. 
3

Sincerely,

Jan Jacobson

Senior Counsel, Retirement Policy

American Benefits Council

cc: Phyllis Borzi

Assistant Secretary of Labor of EBSA

Joe Canary

Director, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, EBSA

Timothy D. Hauser 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Operations, EBSA

Judy Mares

Deputy Assistant Secretary, EBSA

Jeff Turner

Deputy Director, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, EBSA