p

y

y 

Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor200 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20210

Re: Target Date Disclosure

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf ofthe U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we are writing this letter in response to

request for comments on the proposed regulation, Target Date Disclosure, issued by theDepartment of Labor (“DOL”) on November 30, 2010.

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. Yet, virtually all of the nation’s largest companies are also activemembers. The Chamber is particularly cognizant of the problems ofsmaller businesses, as well

as issues facing the business community at large. Besides representing a cross-section of the

American business community in terms of number of employees, the Chamber represents a widemanagement spectrum by type of business and location. Each major classification of American

business—manufacturing, retailing, services, construction, wholesaling, and finance—isrepresented. Also, the Chamber has substantial membership in all 50 states. Positions on

national issues are developed by a cross-section of Chamber members serving on committees,

subcommittees, and task forces. More than 1,000 business people participate in this process.

In response to concerns that participants and plan sponsors were not receiving enough

information about target date funds, the DOL and the Securities and Exchange Commission

(“SEC”) have been working together to ensure that there are appropriate disclosures. Weappreciate the efforts ofthe agencies and believe that additional information could be beneficial

to both participants and beneficiaries. At the same time, we want to ensure that the infoniiation

is useful to participants and does not unduly burden plan administrators. Our comments belowfocus on these issues.

Comments

The Final Rule Should Coordinate with the SEC Rules for Target Date Fund

Disclosures. In June, the SEC issued a proposed rule on Target Date Retirement Fund Names
and the DOL proposal indicates that the SEC proposal contains more detailed requirements. For

example both proposals require the inclusion of a graphic to illustrate the change in assetallocation over time. The SEC proposal, however, requires more detail in this graphic than the

DOL proposal. 2Ifthere is no coordination between the rules, a plan sponsor will have todetermine whether the SEC-compliant service provider document meets the DOL’s

requirements. To avoid this, the final DOL rule should state that service provider disclosures

intended to meet the SEC requirements will also meet the DOL requirements.

The DOL Requirements for Target Date Funds Should Conform as Closely as

Possible to the Participant Disclosure Regulation. We believe that plans sponsors and

participants would benefit from having Target Date Fund disclosures conform as closely aspossible to other analogous participant disclosures. Similar to the reasoning in the paragraph

above, we believe that the greater conformity there is between disclosure requirements, the lessconfusion and burdens there will be on plan sponsors.

For example, we are concerned about the requirement to include a statement that an

investment in a target date fund may lose money because this statement is not required for other

investment disclosures. 3 Singling out target date funds for this notice can deliver two messagesto participants and beneficiaries — that target date funds are more risky than other investment

alternatives and/or that other investment alternatives do not have any risk of losing money.

Therefore, we believe this DOL should address this inconsistency.

We Urge the Department of Labor to Be Aware of the Possibility of Overwhelming

Participants with Information and Notices. As you are aware, plan sponsors are required to

provide various notices to plan participants. Our members are increasingly concerned about the

volume of required notices and whether participants are becoming overwhelmed with the volumeof information being provided.

Plan sponsors are faced with two increasingly conflicting goals—providing information

required under ERISA and providing clear and streamlined information. In addition to requirednotices, plan sponsors want to provide information that is pertinent to the individual plan and

provides greater transparency. However, this is difficult with the amount of required disclosures

that currently exists. As noted by the Third Circuit, too many requirements could “result in an

175 Fed.Reg. 35,920 (June 23, 2010).

2 The SEC proposal specifically requires that fund marketing materials include the fund’s asset allocation at theinception of the fund, on the target date, and at the landing point. The SEC proposal also provides that specific dates

generally must be used to show the asset allocation over time (as opposed to referencing the number of years before

a participant’s retirement date), and that intervals of no longer than five years maybe used for this purpose.

75 Fed. Reg. 73,994 (Nov. 30, 2010).
p

g

g

regulations issued in 2007.6 This is in addition to all of the other notices that participants willreceive. Consequently, we urge the DOL to take a comprehensive look at the benefit notices that

are required. We are increasingly concerned about the amount of information required to be

given to participants. At some point, participants will become overwhelmed thereby nullifying

any intended benefit of the notices. The Chamber is more than willing to assist in such an

important endeavor in any way possible.

Conclusion

We believe that disclosure of useful information is important to the retirement security of

plan participants. As such, we appreciate your consideration of these comments and stand readyto assist you as needed. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

OALADO

Randel K. Johnson

Senior Vice President

Labor, Immigration & Employee

Benefits

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Aliya Wong

Executive Director, Retirement PolicyLabor, Immigration, & Employee

Benefits

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Fischer v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 96 F.3d 1533, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996). 575 Fed.Reg. 73,992 (Nov. 30, 2010).

672 Fed.Reg. 60,468 (Oct. 24, 2007).