October 27, 2012

Department of Labor

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Room N-5655

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Attn: State Savings Arrangement Safe Harbor

RIN: RIN 1210-AB39

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we write in response to the request for 

comments on the Proposed Regulation pertaining to the Extension of Applicability Date for 

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits issued by the Department of Labor 

(DOL).

1

 The Chamber supports a delay of the January 1, 2018 effective date and urges the DOL 

to consider a delay period longer than the proposed 90 days. 

The Chamber is the world's largest business federation, representing more than three 

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region. More than 96 percent of 

the Chamber's members are small businesses with 100 or fewer employees, 70 percent of which 

have 10 or fewer employees.

At the end of 2015, the DOL proposed to change the disability claims regulations by 

imposing the medical claims regulations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) onto disability 

claims. These changes were not required under the ACA—and, arguably, the omission of this 

directive is an indication that Congress purposely did not intend to expand the ACA rules to 

disability insurance claims. The proposed regulation was based on the DOL’s false premise that 

there was a problem with the disability claims procedure under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974.

2

 Despite significant opposition, the DOL finalized the rule at the end of 

2016 with a January 1, 2018 effective date.3 Moreover, by the DOL’s own admission, there was 

minimal economic analysis or reasoning offered for these substantial changes.4

 

182 Fed. Reg. 47409 (October 12, 2017).

2 80 Fed. Reg. 72014 (November 18, 2015).

3 81 Fed. Reg. 92316 (December 19, 2016).

482 Fed. Reg. 47411, stating that “[t]he RIA acknowledged that the Department did not have sufficient data to 

quantify the benefits associated with the Final Rule.” 
2

At the very least, this rule requires a delay to allow the DOL to re-examine the need for 

the rule and provide an appropriate cost-benefit analysis of all proposed changes. While we 

appreciate the delay that the DOL has proposed, we urge the agency to consider a longer delay

period than the proposed 90 day delay after the January 1, 2018 effective date. 

DOL has asked for data within a 60 days comment period ending December 11, 2017. 

Under this time line, the DOL will have less than 4 months to review and analyze the data, 

determine if and what changes need to be made, and propose and finalize a new rule. It is 

unreasonable to expect a full and thoughtful review of the rule, a substantive review and analysis 

of the data, a meaningful discussion between interested parties, and a thoroughly vetted and 

workable rule within this less than 4 month timeframe. Instead, the DOL should take the 

appropriate time needed to ensure that the rule provides appropriate benefits and minimal

burdens. 

Furthermore, stakeholders need certainty. For the reasons detailed above, it is highly 

unlikely that a final rule will be issued by the end of the 90-day delay. Therefore, the DOL will 

have to decide whether to delay the rule again or to allow the rule to go into effect. This choice 

leaves stakeholders wondering how to proceed. They can move forward under the current rule 

and risk having to undo those steps if the rule is ultimately modified or rescinded. In the 

alternative, they can choose to do nothing and then have to attempt compliance in a constrained 

time period. The agency should not set up a scenario that creates such poor choices. 

To ensure that there is an appropriate rule, an adequate review, and certainty for stake 

holders, the DOL needs to delay the effective date of the rule for longer than the proposed 90 

days. We recommend that the DOL delay the rule for the longer of 12 months or until a final 

rule is promulgated. In this way, the DOL can ensure that it takes the appropriate time to 

promulgate an effective rule without upsetting the current market for disability insurance.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with 

you to create a rule that supports and expands the private disability insurance system.

Sincerely,

 

 

 Randel Johnson Aliya Wong

 Senior Vice President Executive Director

 Labor, Immigration & Employee Benefits Retirement Policy

 U.S. Chamber of Commerce U.S. Chamber of Commerce