Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4215 

1The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, Division T of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 

117–328, 136 Stat. 4459 (2022) (SECURE 2.0). 

2 88 FR 54511 (Aug. 11, 2023). Not all of the 

SECURE 2.0 provisions that affect ERISA’s 

reporting and disclosure framework are covered in 

this RFI. For example, the changes to ERISA’s audit 

requirements made by section 345 of SECURE 2.0 

were implemented through a rulemaking relating to 

annual reporting requirements under ERISA. 88 FR 

11793 (Feb. 24, 2023). 

3Section 319(a)(1)–(2) of SECURE 2.0 excludes 

health and welfare plans from the scope of the 

Agencies’ review (directing agency heads to review 

the reporting and disclosure requirements of 

pension plans (as defined in ERISA section 3(2)) 

covered by title I of ERISA and applicable qualified 

retirement plans (as defined in Code section 

4974(c), without regard to Code section 4974(c)(4) 

and (5), including a plan described in Code section 

401(a) which includes a trust exempt from tax 

under Code section 501(a), an annuity plan 

described in Code section 403(a), and an annuity 

contract described in section Code section 403(b), 

Continued 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Parts 1, 54, and 301 

RIN 1545–BQ98 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

29 CFR Parts 2510, 2520, and 2550 

RIN 1210–AC09 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Parts 4000, 4007, 4010, 4041, 

4041A, 4043, 4050, 4062, 4063, 4204, 

4211, 4219, 4231, 4245, 4262, and 4281 

RIN 1212–AB58 

Request for Information—SECURE 2.0 

Section 319—Effectiveness of 

Reporting and Disclosure 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury; Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor; Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury Department), the 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration (EBSA) of the U.S. 

Department of Labor (Labor 

Department), and the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) are 

publishing this Request for Information 

to develop a public record for purposes 

of the directive in the SECURE 2.0 Act 

of 2022 (SECURE 2.0). Specifically, this 

Request for Information addresses 

section 319 of SECURE 2.0, requiring 

that these agencies review the existing 

reporting and disclosure requirements 

for certain retirement plans under the 

Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and 

the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that 

are applicable to each agency. Following 

this review, the agencies are to report to 

Congress, no later than December 29, 

2025, concerning the effectiveness of the 

reporting and disclosure requirements. 

The report will include 

recommendations on consolidating, 

simplifying, standardizing, and 

improving such requirements with the 

dual goals of reducing compliance 

burdens and ensuring plan participants’ 

and beneficiaries’ timely receipt and 

better understanding of the information 

they need to monitor their plans, 

prepare for retirement, and get the 

benefits they have earned. The report 

will also consider how participants and 

beneficiaries are providing preferred 

contact information, the methods by 

which plan sponsors and plans are 

furnishing disclosures, and the rate at 

which participants and beneficiaries are 

receiving, accessing, understanding, and 

retaining disclosures. Consistent with 

the directive in section 319 of SECURE 

2.0, this Request for Information focuses 

generally on the overall effectiveness of 

the reporting and disclosure frameworks 

in ERISA and the Code. Responses to 

this Request for Information will inform 

the agencies in preparation of the 

required report to Congress and in any 

future action taken by the agencies to 

enhance the effectiveness of existing 

requirements. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the following addresses no later than 

April 22, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments, 

identified by RIN 1210–AC09, may be 

submitted to one of the addresses 

specified below. Any comment that is 

submitted will be shared with the 

Department of the Treasury, the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS), and the Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Please do 

not submit duplicates. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Please address to ‘‘Attention: 

Request for Information—SECURE 2.0 

Section 319—Effectiveness of Reporting 

and Disclosure Requirements.’’ Office of 

Regulations and Interpretations, 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–5655, U.S. Department 

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20210. 

Instructions: Persons submitting 

comments electronically are encouraged 

not to submit paper copies. Comments 

will be available to the public, without 

charge, at www.regulations.gov, on the 

Department of Labor’s website at 

www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-andregulations/rules-and-regulations/ 

public-comments, and at the Public 

Disclosure Room, EBSA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Suite N–1515, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210. Comments may also be 

accessed from PBGC’s website at 

www.pbgc.gov. 

Warning: Do not include any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that you do not 

want publicly disclosed. Comments are 

public records and can be retrieved by 

most internet search engines. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Davis, Office of Regulations 

and Interpretations, EBSA, Labor 

Department, (202) 693–8500. Jamie 

Dvoretzky, Office of Associate Chief 

Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt 

Organizations, and Employment Taxes 

(CC:EEE)), IRS, Treasury Department, at 

(202) 317–4102. David Simonetti, Legal 

Policy Division, Office of the General 

Counsel, PBGC, (202) 229–4362. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

SECURE 2.0 includes provisions 

amending ERISA and the Code and 

requiring the Labor Department, the 

Treasury Department, and PBGC (each 

an Agency and, together, the Agencies) 

to undertake specified statutory, 

regulatory, and review requirements 

and, in some cases, to report to Congress 

based on their findings.1 A number of 

these provisions relate to the reporting 

and disclosure requirements of ERISA 

and the Code. For example, on August 

11, 2023, the Labor Department 

published a separate request for 

information focusing on ten specific 

sections of SECURE 2.0 that amend 

ERISA or otherwise impact, directly or 

indirectly, ERISA’s reporting and 

disclosure requirements.2 At that time, 

the Labor Department stated its 

intention to move forward in the short 

term with a separate initiative, in 

coordination with the Treasury 

Department and PBGC, to formally 

solicit input from stakeholders in 

response to section 319 of SECURE 2.0. 

Section 319 of SECURE 2.0 includes 

a wide-ranging directive to the Agencies 

to review each Agency’s existing 

reporting and disclosure requirements 

under the Code and ERISA for 

retirement plans specified in section 

319 of SECURE 2.0.3 After this review, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

but excluding plans described in Code section 

408(a) or (b) and eligible plans described in Code 

section 457(b)). 

4ERISA section 105; 29 U.S.C. 1025. 

5Code section 401(k)(12); 26 U.S.C. 401(k)(12); 26 

CFR 1.401(k)–3(d). 

6ERISA section 101(f); 29 U.S.C. 1021(f); 29 CFR 

2520.101–5. 

7ERISA section 101(i); 29 U.S.C. 1021(i); 29 CFR 

2520.101–3. 

8Code section 402(f); 26 U.S.C. 402(f); 26 CFR 

1.402(f)–1. 

9ERISA section 4041(a)(2); 29 U.S.C. 1341; 29 

CFR 4041.23. 

10 84 FR 56894, 56908 (Oct. 23, 2019). 

11 82 FR 34619, 34620 (July 26, 2017). 

12 GAO–14–92, Private Pensions: Clarity of 

Required Reports and Disclosures Could Be 

Improved (Nov. 2013); GAO–21–357, 401(k) 

Retirement Plans: Many Participants Do Not 

Understand Fee Information, but DOL Could Take 

Additional Steps to Help Them (July 2021); GAO– 

20–541, Retirement Security: DOL Could Better 

Inform Divorcing Parties About Dividing Savings 

(July 2020); GAO–19–179, Retirement Savings: 

Additional Data and Analysis Could Provide Insight 

into Early Withdrawals (Mar. 2019); GAO–18– 

111SP, The Nation’s Retirement System: A 

Comprehensive Re-evaluation is Needed to Better 

Promote Future Retirement Security (Oct. 2017). 

13The ERISA Advisory Council (established 

under ERISA section 512) is comprised of 15 

members of the public representing employee 

organizations, employers, and the general public. 

The Council holds public meetings, advises the 

Secretary of Labor, and submits annual reports 

detailing their recommendations to the Labor 

Department, including on the topic of reporting and 

disclosure. See, e.g., ERISA Advisory Council 

Report, Mandated Disclosure for Retirement Plans— 

Enhancing Effectiveness for Participants and 

Sponsors (Nov. 2017); ERISA Advisory Council 

Report, Successful Plan Communications for 

Various Population Segments (Nov. 2013). 

and in consultation with a balanced 

group of participant and employer 

representatives, the Agencies are to 

report to Congress on the effectiveness 

of these reporting and disclosure 

requirements, including 

recommendations to consolidate, 

simplify, standardize, and improve such 

requirements. This review is to be 

expansive in scope. In the Agencies’ 

view, the review calls for generalized 

questions about how plans can (a) 

efficiently furnish valuable information 

to the Agencies, and (b) best 

communicate information to workers 

and former employees, who have widely 

varying backgrounds and expertise, that 

would enable them to effectively obtain, 

understand, and use information about 

their plans and to plan for retirement. 

The overarching theme of 

‘‘effectiveness’’ will be explored in the 

context of both the reporting and 

disclosure requirements under the 

jurisdiction of the three Agencies. The 

public is directed to www.irs.gov/ 

retirement-plans/irc-notice-andreporting-requirements-affectingretirement-plans (Treasury Department), 

www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/ 

about-ebsa/our-activities/resourcecenter/publications/reporting-anddisclosure-guide-for-employee-benefitplans.pdf (Labor Department), and 

www.pbgc.gov (PBGC) to review the 

principal requirements of each Agency 

relating to reporting and disclosure 

under ERISA or the Code with respect 

to retirement plans. 

ERISA and the Code require that 

plans furnish information to 

participants and beneficiaries, in some 

cases on a regular and recurring basis 

(e.g., pension benefit statements,4 Code 

section 401(k)(12) safe harbor notices,5

and annual funding notices 6) and in 

other cases when triggered by plan or 

participant actions (e.g., black-out 

notices,7 Code section 402(f) notices,8

and notices of intent to terminate 9). For 

purposes of this Request for Information 

(RFI), the term ‘‘disclosure’’ includes 

notices, statements, and other 

documents and refers generally to the 

furnishing of information to participants 

and beneficiaries of retirement plans as 

required by ERISA or the Code or 

regulations issued by the Agencies 

thereunder. 

The term ‘‘reporting’’ is used in this 

RFI to refer to the furnishing of 

information, or ‘‘reports,’’ by plans to 

the Agencies, as required by ERISA or 

the Code, or regulations issued by the 

Agencies thereunder. The Agencies do 

not consider information that is 

submitted to the Agencies in connection 

with an audit, examination, 

investigation, or enforcement action to 

be ‘‘reports’’ for purposes of section 319. 

The Agencies also do not consider 

information that is furnished on a 

voluntary basis to an Agency to obtain 

favorable treatment, or information 

relating to financial transactions that is 

not retirement-plan-specific information 

to be ‘‘reports’’ for purposes of section 

319. Examples of information not 

considered to be ‘‘reports’’ include: 

D Information that is submitted as a 

condition of an individual exemption 

under ERISA section 408(a). 

D Information that is submitted to the 

Agencies to receive financial assistance 

or benefits. 

D Information that is submitted to the 

Agencies in connection with requests 

for determination or opinion letters, 

advisory opinions, information letters, 

private letter rulings, closing 

agreements, voluntary compliance 

statements under the Employee Plans 

Compliance Resolution System, or relief 

pursuant to the Voluntary Fiduciary 

Correction Program or the Delinquent 

Filer Voluntary Compliance Program. 

D Information that is submitted to the 

Agencies and that is not specific to 

retirement plans, such as reporting that 

may be required of financial institutions 

holding foreign investments. 

The Agencies recognize that a key 

component of retirement plans’ 

reporting to the Agencies is the Form 

5500 Annual Report. However, for 

purposes of this RFI, the Agencies are 

primarily focusing, and requesting 

comments, on reporting requirements 

other than the Form 5500 Annual 

Report. Apart from the context of 

SECURE 2.0 section 319, the Agencies 

have an annual process for soliciting 

feedback from the public on the Form 

5500 Annual Report and reviewing and 

improving the effectiveness of that form 

in response to such feedback. The 

Agencies therefore pursue the 

overarching goal of the review required 

by section 319—improving the 

effectiveness of reporting on the Form 

5500 Annual Report—every year. The 

Agencies urge commenters, when 

responding to this RFI, to focus on 

information and analyses that look 

beyond the requirements of the Form 

5500 Annual Report. 

In addition to information received 

and points of view expressed by public 

commenters in response to this RFI, the 

Agencies’ review for purposes of the 

report to Congress may include feedback 

from the public provided as part of prior 

efforts of the Agencies and others to 

assess and improve the effectiveness of 

the reporting and disclosure 

requirements of the Code and ERISA. 

The Labor Department, for example, as 

recently as 2019, published a request for 

information (the DOL 2019 RFI), which 

solicited information, data, and ideas 

from the public on measures that the 

Labor Department could take to improve 

the effectiveness of plan disclosures, 

especially for the design and content of 

ERISA disclosures.10 Similarly PBGC, in 

2017, published a request for 

information (the PBGC 2017 RFI), 

which, in part, solicited information 

and suggestions from the public for 

improving reporting requirements.11

Parties external to the Agencies also 

have studied whether and how the 

reporting and disclosure frameworks of 

ERISA and the Code may be improved. 

The U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) has issued a number of 

reports in recent years on this topic, 

working with the Agencies to review 

reporting and disclosure requirements 

in different contexts.12 The Labor 

Department’s ERISA Advisory Council 

has also analyzed reporting- and 

disclosure-related topics in certain 

years, in some cases providing 

testimony and recommendations to 

assist the Labor Department’s efforts.13

In addition, the Internal Revenue 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4217 

14 29 CFR 2520.102–3. 

15ERISA section 105; 29 U.S.C. 1025 (periodic 

statements of a participant’s individual account 

balance or plan benefits). 

16 29 CFR 2550.404a–5 (annual comparative chart 

of fee, historical return, and other information about 

investment options in a participant-directed 

individual account plan). 

17Code section 401(k)(12); 26 U.S.C. 401(k)(12); 

26 CFR 1.401(k)–3(d) (notice describing eligible 

employees’ rights and obligations under a safe 

harbor section 401(k) plan). 

18ERISA section 101(f); 29 U.S.C. 1021(f); 29 CFR 

2520.101–5 (provides basic information about the 

status and financial condition of a defined benefit 

pension plan). 

19ERISA section 101(i); 29 U.S.C. 1021(i); 29 CFR 

2520.101–3 (notice of a temporary suspension or 

restriction on the ability of participants to direct 

plan investments, obtain loans, or take 

distributions). 

20Code section 402(f); 26 U.S.C. 402(f); 26 CFR 

1.402(f)–1 (written explanation provided to a 

recipient of an eligible rollover distribution). 

21ERISA section 4041(a)(2); 29 U.S.C. 1341; 29 

CFR 4041.23. In the event a defined benefit plan is 

terminated by a standard or distress termination, 

the plan administrator must provide participants, 

beneficiaries of deceased participants, alternate 

payees under qualified domestic relations orders, 

employee organizations representing participants, 

and PBGC (but only in the case of a distress 

termination), a written notice of intent to terminate 

(Form 500 for a standard termination, or Form 600 

for a distress termination) at least 60 days, and no 

more than 90 days, before the proposed termination 

date. 

22Code section 6057(e); 26 U.S.C. 6057(e). 

Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) 

provides recommendations to the IRS 

on reporting issues. The Agencies are 

confident that use of these resources, 

together with feedback from public 

commenters pursuant to this RFI, will 

facilitate the preparation of a 

comprehensive, insightful, and 

instructive report to Congress on the 

effectiveness of reporting and disclosure 

requirements. 

II. Request for Information—SECURE 

2.0 Section 319—Effectiveness of 

Reporting and Disclosure Requirements 

The purpose of this RFI, as explained 

in Part I, is to obtain input from the 

public on the effectiveness of the 

reporting and disclosure requirements 

of ERISA and the Code that the 

Agencies can consider in preparing the 

required report to Congress. Responses 

to this RFI also may be used as part of 

the public record for any future action 

taken by the Agencies to enhance such 

effectiveness. The Agencies invite 

comments and relevant data from all 

interested stakeholders. Commenters 

need not answer every question, but are 

encouraged to identify, by number, each 

question addressed. The Agencies 

request comments no later than 90 days 

from the date of publication of this 

document in the Federal Register, a 

timeframe that the Agencies believe is 

adequate for commenters to review the 

RFI and provide considered and timely 

responses. 

A. Disclosure to Plan Participants and 

Beneficiaries 

The effectiveness of required notices 

and disclosures may be measured from 

different perspectives, including that of 

the retirement plan participants and 

beneficiaries who are the intended 

recipients of these disclosures and that 

of the plans and plan sponsors that 

provide disclosures. Section 319 of 

SECURE 2.0 acknowledges the 

importance of both perspectives by 

directing the Agencies to analyze ways 

to consolidate, simplify, standardize, 

and improve such requirements, so as to 

achieve the dual goals of ‘‘simplify[ing] 

reporting for, and disclosure from, 

[retirement] plans’’ and ensuring that 

‘‘participants and beneficiaries timely 

receive and better understand the 

information they need to monitor their 

plans, plan for retirement, and obtain 

the benefits they have earned.’’ The 

questions in Part 1 of this Section A are 

primarily intended to elicit information 

about disclosures from the perspective 

of participants and beneficiaries. The 

questions in Part 2 of this Section A are 

primarily aimed at better understanding 

the perspective of plans and plan 

sponsors on furnishing required 

disclosures. The Agencies understand 

that the distinction between these 

perspectives will not always be clearcut, but nonetheless encourage 

commenters to consider the issues 

raised in this RFI from both perspectives 

when possible. Because plan officials 

and delegees (including plan 

fiduciaries, plan administrators, service 

and investment providers, and others) 

exercise important responsibilities in 

connection with plans’ reporting and 

disclosure obligations, the Agencies’ 

references in this RFI to ‘‘plans’’ 

include, unless otherwise specified, any 

such plan officials or delegees, to the 

extent they are responsible for, or are 

employed or hired to perform duties 

associated with, collecting and 

consolidating information and data and 

preparing and furnishing required 

notices and disclosures. 

ERISA and the Code require plans to 

furnish information to participants and 

beneficiaries about the features of their 

plans (e.g., eligibility requirements, 

contribution limitations, the availability 

of plan loans and distribution options) 

and plan benefits and rights under 

applicable law. Some disclosures are 

furnished on a regular and recurring 

basis, and others when triggered by plan 

or participant actions. For an individual 

participant or beneficiary, the number of 

disclosures that will be received 

depends on a number of factors, 

including the type of plan, its specific 

features, and whether certain actions are 

taken by the participant or beneficiary. 

One of the most significant disclosures 

under ERISA is the summary plan 

description (SPD). The SPD is the 

primary resource informing participants 

and beneficiaries about their plan and 

how it operates—an ‘‘owner’s manual’’ 

for the plan.14 Other prominent 

disclosures under ERISA and the Code 

include pension benefit statements,15

ERISA’s comparative investment 

chart,16 Code section 401(k)(12) safe 

harbor notices,17 defined benefit plan 

annual funding notices,18 black-out 

notices,19 Code section 402(f) notices,20

and notices of intent to terminate.21

1. Plan Participants and Beneficiaries— 

Receipt and Comprehension of Required 

Disclosures 

Question 1. Number of required 

disclosures. 

Is the effectiveness of required 

disclosures from the Agencies affected 

by the number of notices and 

disclosures that are furnished to 

participants and beneficiaries each plan 

or calendar year (e.g., annual notices 

and quarterly benefit statements) and, if 

so, how? Similarly, is the effectiveness 

of disclosures affected by the number of 

notices and disclosures that are 

triggered by certain events (e.g., 

individual statements of deferred vested 

benefits 22), including when plans are 

required to furnish notices upon request 

from a participant or beneficiary? In 

your view, what is the relative 

significance of the required disclosures, 

are participants and beneficiaries able to 

recognize the significance of each notice 

or disclosure, and does this ability 

influence your view on how many 

disclosures should be required or 

whether certain disclosures are more or 

less effective? If you believe that the 

number of notices and disclosures is too 

high, what steps could the Agencies 

take to reduce the number of disclosures 

without sacrificing participants’ and 

beneficiaries’ receipt of important 

information? To the extent there are 

concerns with the number of 

disclosures, to what extent could these 

concerns be mitigated by combining 

multiple disclosures into a single 

mailing or delivery, or by consolidating 

information that currently must be 

furnished in multiple disclosures into a 

single disclosure? Are there specific 

disclosures, or specific information, that 

lend themselves to such a combination 

or consolidation, and, if so, why? For 

example, as explained in Q&A–8 of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

23See, e.g., ERISA section 105(a)(2)(A)(iii); 29 

U.S.C. 1025(a)(2)(A)(iii) (applying the readability 

standard to pension benefit statements). See also 29 

CFR 2520.102–2(a) (applying the readability 

standard to summary plan descriptions). The 

readability standard requires plan administrators to 

exercise considered judgment and discretion, taking 

into account factors such as the level of 

comprehension and education of a plan’s 

participant population and the complexity of a 

plan’s terms. Consideration of such factors usually 

compels plan administrators, for example, to write 

notices that limit or eliminate technical jargon and 

long, complex sentences, and that use clarifying 

examples and illustrations, clear cross references, 

and tables of contents. Id. 

24 29 CFR 4041.3(c)(4). 

25See, e.g., 26 CFR 54.4980F–1, Q&A–11(a)(2) 

(information in a section 204(h) notice must be 

written in a manner calculated to be understood by 

the average plan participant); 26 CFR 1.401(k)– 

3(d)(2)(i)(B) (providing that the safe harbor notice 

must be written in a manner calculated to be 

understood by the average employee). 

26See, e.g., 29 CFR 2520.102–2(c) (describing 

standards for summary plan descriptions furnished 

to plan participants literate in a non-English 

language and assistance that must be provided to 

non-English speakers to inform them of their rights 

and obligations under the plan); 29 CFR 

4041.3(c)(5). 

Department of Labor Field Assistance 

Bulletin No. 2008–03, the Labor 

Department, Treasury Department, and 

the IRS previously coordinated to 

ensure that plan sponsors could comply 

with the notice requirements of Code 

sections 401(k)(13)(E) (relating to 

Qualified Automatic Contribution 

Arrangements) and 414(w)(4) (relating 

to Eligible Automatic Contribution 

Arrangements) and ERISA sections 

404(c)(5) (relating to Qualified Default 

Investment Alternatives) and 514(e)(3) 

(relating to preemption for Automatic 

Contribution Arrangements) with a 

single, stand-alone document (although 

plan sponsors are not required to 

combine those notices). Further, for 

plan sponsors that wish to combine 

those notices, the Labor Department, 

Treasury Department, and the IRS 

previously provided a sample notice 

that may be used to help a plan sponsor 

satisfy those notice content 

requirements. As another example, see 

§ 54.4980F–1, Q&A–9(g)(3), in which a 

plan is treated as providing a section 

204(h) notice if the plan administrator 

provides one of the notices listed in 

§ 54.4980F–1, Q&A–9(g)(3)(ii) and meets 

the content and timing requirements for 

that notice. 

Question 2. Timing of required 

disclosures. 

Do the timing requirements for when 

certain disclosures must be furnished 

increase or decrease the likelihood that 

participants will pay attention to them? 

Should changes be made to when 

information is disclosed to participants 

and, if so, how? For example, to what 

extent would it be beneficial for plans 

to harmonize timing requirements to 

specific points in time corresponding to 

participants’ major life milestones or 

events? Explain how such changes 

could be implemented and how they 

would enhance the likelihood that 

participants would pay attention to the 

disclosure or disclosures or otherwise 

improve the disclosure experience. 

Question 3. Content of required 

disclosures. 

Is there duplicative, redundant, stale, 

or inconsistent information disclosed to 

participants under current rules 

promulgated under ERISA or the Code? 

If so, which information? Why do you 

consider that information duplicative, 

redundant, stale, or inconsistent? Do 

either ERISA or the Code, or regulations 

issued thereunder, currently require 

disclosure of any information that is 

unhelpful or outmoded, for example, 

due to the passage of time or changes in 

the regulatory, business, or 

technological environment? If so, what 

information and why is it unhelpful or 

outmoded? Is there information that 

should be disclosed instead of the 

unhelpful or outmoded information? If 

so, what information? How could it be 

improved? In analyzing the content of 

required disclosures, commenters are 

reminded to consider the objective 

stated in SECURE 2.0 section 319, that 

participants and beneficiaries be 

furnished the ‘‘information they need to 

monitor their plans, plan for retirement, 

and obtain the benefits they have 

earned.’’ 

Question 4. Comprehension of 

information furnished in required 

disclosures. 

Section 319 of SECURE 2.0 requires 

that the Agencies’ report to Congress 

include an analysis of ‘‘the rate at which 

participants and beneficiaries are 

receiving, accessing, understanding, and 

retaining disclosures.’’ As to 

individuals’ understanding, the 

Agencies are interested in commenters’ 

views on whether and how the length of 

specific disclosures, and the complexity 

of the information disclosed, may 

impact individuals’ understanding of 

the disclosures. Besides length, what 

other factors affect comprehension of 

the information contained in notices 

and disclosures or, possibly, whether 

participants and beneficiaries even try 

to read and understand disclosures? 

Does review and comprehension of 

participants and beneficiaries vary 

among: (1) industries; (2) individuals of 

different ages, genders, education levels, 

socio-economic classes, place of living, 

impairments or disabilities, or other 

demographic characteristics; or (3) 

different types of disclosures? To what 

degree does the presentation, delivery, 

and design of disclosures (as opposed to 

their written content) impact the 

likelihood that participants and 

beneficiaries will read and understand 

the information disclosed? Are there 

design elements or tools that are 

particularly effective, for example, 

mixed media presentations, the use of 

social media, or plain language 

infographics? If so, should these 

presentation and design elements be 

required, or are there steps that could be 

taken to facilitate use of those methods? 

Are participants and beneficiaries 

regularly surveyed or otherwise 

assessed regarding their comprehension 

of information about their plans? How 

are those surveys or reviews conducted? 

What additional information should be 

considered in developing disclosures 

that are effective for different 

participants and beneficiaries? How can 

the Agencies effectively measure the 

extent to which participants and 

beneficiaries understand the 

information that is disclosed to them? 

Question 5. Plain English; foreign 

language-based issues; underserved 

communities. 

Information disclosed to participants 

and beneficiaries is often quite technical 

and complex. However, for disclosures 

to be useful, information needs to be 

conveyed in ‘‘plain language’’—in a way 

that is understandable to a highly 

demographically diverse population of 

workers and their beneficiaries. Labor 

Department disclosures, for example, 

generally are required to be ‘‘written in 

a manner calculated to be understood by 

the average plan participant.’’ 23

Similarly, certain PBGC notices to 

affected parties must be ‘‘readable and 

written in a manner calculated to be 

understood by the average plan 

participant.’’ 24 Also, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS require that 

notices to participants and beneficiaries 

be written in a manner calculated to be 

understood by the average plan 

participant.25 Are these standards 

sufficient to ensure that notices and 

disclosures are likely to be 

comprehensible to participants and 

beneficiaries and, if not, what additional 

or different standards would enhance 

individuals’ understanding? Further, 

not all workers speak English or speak 

English only as a second (or further 

removed) language. Some of the 

Agencies’ disclosures are subject to 

standards as to the use of additional 

languages. Are these standards 

sufficient? 26 If not, what barriers to 

comprehension exist for non-native 

English-speakers, and what further steps 

could the Agencies take to reduce these 

barriers? Do plans take additional steps, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4219 

27 29 CFR 2520.104b–31 (the Labor Department’s 

2020 safe harbor); 29 CFR 2520.104b–1 (the Labor 

Department’s 2002 safe harbor); 26 CFR 1.401(a)–21 

and § 54.4980F–1, Q&A–13 (Treasury Department 

guidance); 29 CFR part 4000, subpart B (PBGC 

issuance rules). 

in addition to what is required by 

ERISA and the Code, to educate or tailor 

disclosures to their participant 

populations? Is there existing research, 

user testing, or other considerations that 

the Agencies should review or steps 

they could take to increase the 

effectiveness of disclosures to 

participants and beneficiaries in 

underserved communities? 

Question 6. Accessing required 

disclosures. 

As noted in Question 4, section 319 

of SECURE 2.0 requires that the 

Agencies’ report to Congress include an 

analysis of ‘‘the rate at which 

participants and beneficiaries are 

receiving, accessing, understanding, and 

retaining disclosures.’’ (Emphasis 

added.) The Agencies understand 

‘‘access’’ to refer to the extent to which 

participants and beneficiaries open and 

look at, review, or consult the disclosure 

for purposes of using its information, 

either contemporaneous with the receipt 

of the disclosure or at any point in the 

future. What tools, if any, do entities 

have to discern whether participants 

and beneficiaries are accessing 

disclosures? Do individuals commonly 

access disclosures only on receipt, at 

regular intervals throughout the year, or 

only at specific points in time 

corresponding to major life milestones 

(e.g., marriage, divorce, childbirth, 

adoption, retirement, or job change)? Do 

participants and beneficiaries access 

disclosures more or less frequently 

depending on how the disclosures are 

furnished, for example, whether they 

receive paper disclosures in the mail, 

electronic disclosures via email, text 

messages, mobile applications, or 

notifications of disclosures’ availability 

on a continuous-access website? Do they 

access certain disclosures at higher rates 

than others? What are best practices in 

ensuring that participants and 

beneficiaries have ready access to 

relevant information at the time they 

need it, and that they know they have 

such access? 

Question 7. Retaining disclosures 

after receipt. 

As noted in Question 4, section 319 

of SECURE 2.0 requires that the 

Agencies’ report to Congress include an 

analysis of ‘‘the rate at which 

participants and beneficiaries are 

receiving, accessing, understanding, and 

retaining disclosures.’’ As to retention of 

disclosures, do plans collect data or 

conduct surveys on how often 

participants and beneficiaries 

download, print, save, or otherwise 

‘‘retain’’ disclosures for future use? If so, 

how, and are any trends evident from 

such data? Does data exist on how often 

participants and beneficiaries request 

copies of disclosures, for example, do 

they often request paper disclosures to 

be re-mailed or electronic versions of 

disclosures to be re-sent via email, text, 

or mobile application, and, if so, are any 

trends evident from such data? To what 

extent, if any, does the ability of plan 

participants to access plan-related 

information online, such as through a 

continuous access secure website, 

impact conventional retention behavior? 

What methodologies exist, or are in 

development, for measuring retention of 

disclosures by participants and 

beneficiaries? 

Question 8. Participant and 

beneficiary engagement; decisionmaking. 

Do plans collect data on participant 

and beneficiary levels of engagement in 

response to participant notices and 

disclosures and, if so, what data is 

collected, and how is ‘‘engagement’’ 

defined and determined? What 

impediments, if any, prevent or 

dissuade plans from collecting such 

data? If such data is collected, do plans 

act in response to such data and, if so, 

are there illustrative examples? For 

example, are there circumstances when 

plans act based upon evidence of a 

participant’s lack of engagement? To the 

extent sensitive or confidential 

information may be used in efforts to 

enhance engagement with participants 

and beneficiaries, do best practices exist 

for plans to ensure that such 

information is accessible but is not 

inappropriately used or disclosed to 

other parties? Do plans collect data on 

the extent to which disclosures impact 

participant and beneficiary behavior 

and decision-making? If so, how is this 

impact assessed? Is certain information 

or are certain disclosures more likely to 

elicit engagement or modify individuals’ 

behavior? If so, which information or 

disclosures, and how? Do plans and 

plan service providers have ready access 

to information on when or how often 

plan participants and beneficiaries visit 

a plan’s website or open plan-related 

emails or text messages? Are there any 

impediments to plans collecting and 

considering such information in 

assessing engagement and effectiveness? 

If so, what are those impediments? 

2. Plans, Plan Administrators, and Plan 

Service Providers—Furnishing Required 

Disclosures 

Question 9. Provision of preferred 

contact information to plans. 

Section 319 of SECURE 2.0 requires 

that the Agencies’ report to Congress 

include an analysis of ‘‘how participants 

and beneficiaries are providing 

preferred contact information.’’ Given 

the fact-based nature of this analysis, 

the Agencies request data, statistics, or 

other information from plans about 

whether, when, how, and for what 

reasons (e.g., upon hire or plan 

eligibility, residential move, physical or 

mental impairment, marriage or divorce) 

participants and beneficiaries 

communicate and update their contact 

information for plan purposes. For 

example, new employees or participants 

may indicate their preferred contact 

information in plan enrollment 

materials, and existing employees and 

existing participants may update their 

preferred contact information directly 

on a plan’s website, a plan 

recordkeeper’s website, a mobile 

application, or the plan sponsor’s 

human resources or other database, or 

by contacting the plan sponsor directly. 

Likewise, some employees, participants, 

and beneficiaries may need to provide 

and update contact information on file 

with their employer, their unions (if 

collectively bargained), and other plans 

that may be administered by different 

recordkeepers or other entities. Do plans 

remind employees, participants, and 

beneficiaries to check the accuracy of 

their contact information and update as 

necessary and, if so, when, and how? 

Are there circumstances when plans 

check the accuracy of a participant’s or 

beneficiary’s contact information, and, if 

so, under what circumstances; how are 

such checks performed? Are there 

observable trends in this data, for 

example, changes in response to Agency 

regulatory or other actions or changes in 

the retirement plan industry? 

Question 10. Delivery—furnishing 

disclosures to participants and 

beneficiaries. 

Section 319 of SECURE 2.0 requires 

that the Agencies’ report to Congress 

include an analysis of both ‘‘the 

methods by which plan sponsors and 

plans are furnishing disclosures’’ and 

‘‘the rate at which participants and 

beneficiaries are receiving, accessing, 

understanding, and retaining 

disclosures.’’ (Emphasis added.) Each 

Agency has specific guidelines as to 

methods by which plans may furnish 

disclosures to participants and 

beneficiaries, including the 

circumstances in which disclosures may 

be furnished electronically (e.g., via 

email, website access, mobile and 

smartphone applications, or audio and 

video channels), rather than on paper.27

As information technology evolves, so 

might the standard for ‘‘effective’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

28See, e.g., 29 CFR 2520.101–3(e)(2) (model 

notice of blackout periods under individual account 

plans); 29 CFR 4041.23(b) and 4041.43(b) (model 

notices of intention to terminate plan); IRS Notice 

2020–62, 2020–35 IRB 476, (model Code section 

402(f) notices). 

delivery of information to participants 

and beneficiaries. Are there certain 

disclosures that participants and 

beneficiaries prefer to receive on paper 

(e.g., highly individualized and complex 

notices, such as quarterly and annual 

benefit statements), and, if so, what 

explains this preference? Commenters 

are encouraged to provide data, 

statistics, or other information about 

which delivery methods are most 

commonly used by plans and factors 

that may explain participants’ 

preferences for certain delivery 

methods. For plans that deliver 

disclosures electronically, does data 

exist on participant opt-in and opt-out 

rates, practices, and trends in such 

rates? Do plans regularly reassess 

compliance with applicable electronic 

delivery standards or survey plan 

participants and beneficiaries regarding 

their preferences for how to receive 

information from their plans? Do plans 

periodically evaluate whether 

disclosures are successfully received by 

participants and beneficiaries and, if so, 

how? What data exists about rates of 

receipt? Are there observable trends in 

this data, for example, in response to 

Agency regulatory or other actions, 

changes in participant and beneficiary 

preferences, technological advances, or 

changes in the retirement plan industry? 

To what extent are age, demographics, 

or residence relevant to participants’ 

and beneficiaries’ effective access to and 

use of electronic means of delivery? If 

these variables are relevant, what are 

best practices for addressing differential 

use of and access to electronic 

disclosures? 

Question 11. Availability of model 

notices or model language. 

In some cases, the Agencies offer, or 

are required by statute to provide, 

model notices or model language that 

can be used by plans or plan 

administrators to satisfy the content 

requirements of required disclosures.28

To what extent does the provision of 

models reduce the cost to plans for 

preparing required disclosures? The 

Agencies generally provide model 

notices or language in English; what are 

commenters’ views on the Agencies’ 

provision of model notices or language 

in one or more languages other than 

English and how to determine which 

languages? To what extent does the 

provision of such models impact the 

understanding and retention of the 

disclosure by a participant or 

beneficiary? Are there additional model 

notices or model language that the 

Agencies could provide for specific 

disclosures that would be especially 

helpful to plans or that would reduce 

the burden on plans to prepare such 

disclosures? 

Question 12. Participant and 

beneficiary feedback regarding notices 

and disclosures. 

Please describe the extent to which 

plans receive questions from, or are 

made aware of concerns from, 

individuals who receive required 

notices and disclosures regarding those 

communications. What procedures are 

in place to respond to such questions 

and concerns? Are there common 

themes in the types of issues that result 

in inquiries from participants and 

beneficiaries? Is there any notable 

difference in the types of questions and 

concerns that are raised by telephone, 

by email, or otherwise? 

Question 13. Costs of disclosure. 

What is the aggregate annual cost to 

defined contribution and defined 

benefit plans to make required 

disclosures? Are costs significantly 

higher for certain disclosures than 

others and, if so, which disclosures and 

why? To what extent are these 

disclosure costs paid from plan assets or 

from the general assets of a plan 

sponsor? Are there ways to lower 

disclosure costs without negatively 

impacting the comprehensiveness or 

effectiveness of the information that is 

required to be disclosed? Commenters 

are encouraged to provide any data 

relevant to these questions. 

B. Reporting to the Agencies 

As with required disclosures, the 

effectiveness of required reporting to the 

Agencies can be measured from 

different perspectives. Section 319 of 

SECURE 2.0 explicitly refers to 

‘‘simplify[ing] reporting for . . . plans,’’ 

evidencing concern for plans’ 

perspectives. But the effectiveness of the 

Code’s and ERISA’s reporting 

requirements also may be evaluated 

from the perspectives of the Agencies 

receiving required reports, the 

participants and beneficiaries of 

reporting plans, and third parties who 

may be able to aggregate and use 

reported information to inform 

academic, industry, participant 

advocacy, or other work. Each of these 

perspectives is raised below. 

1. Submission of Required Reports by 

Plans 

Question 14. Frequency and timing of 

reports. 

What is your view on the number of 

reports that must be filed with the 

Agencies each plan or calendar year and 

how this number impacts a plan’s 

ability to implement reporting 

procedures efficiently? Are the timing 

requirements of any reports in conflict 

or inefficient, either for one Agency or 

across the Agencies? Could the filing 

deadlines for any reports, either for 

ERISA or the Code or both, be modified 

to allow consolidation of more than one 

report without compromising the 

Agencies’ timely receipt of information? 

Question 15. Content of reports. 

Please describe the extent to which 

any of the reports required by ERISA or 

the Code collect more, or less, 

information than you believe should be 

necessary for the Agencies to discharge 

their oversight and other 

responsibilities? If so, which reports, 

and how could they be modified to 

inform the Agencies more effectively? 

Do any challenges exist in obtaining 

information from sources subject to laws 

other than the Code and ERISA (e.g., 

Federal securities laws or State 

insurance laws) that is necessary, or 

helpful, for preparation of reports? 

Question 16. Clarity of reporting 

requirements. 

Are the instructions for reports clear 

and helpful? Are there particular reports 

for which the instructions could be 

simplified or could more accurately 

reflect the administration of retirement 

plans? Should the Agencies make 

instructions available in languages other 

than English? Should instructions be 

written subject to a readability standard, 

such as in a manner reasonably 

calculated to be understood by the target 

filers (for example large companies 

versus small employers)? 

Question 17. Efficacy of filing 

methods for reports. 

Do the filing methods for reports need 

updating or improvement? For reports 

that must be filed electronically, are 

there circumstances when plans would 

benefit from waiver procedures 

permitting paper filings and, if so, what 

plans, what reports, and what 

circumstances? Alternatively, are there 

reports that must be filed on paper that 

would be more effectively filed 

electronically, and, if so, as a mandate 

or as an option? 

Question 18. Improving Agency 

assistance with reporting requirements. 

Are the Agencies’ customer service 

personnel and capabilities sufficient or 

in need of improvement for the 

questions about the content of reports, 

technical support for completing and 

filing reports, or otherwise? Should the 

Agencies monitor, track, and disclose 

user experience for any reports? If so, 

how should the Agencies compile this 

data and use it to inform improvements 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4221 

to customer service protocols, including 

technical support? 

Question 19. Costs of reporting. 

What is the aggregate annual cost to 

defined contribution and defined 

benefit plans to submit reports required 

by ERISA and the Code? Are costs 

significantly higher for certain reports 

than others and, if so, which reports, 

and why? To what extent are such 

reporting costs paid from plan assets 

versus from the general assets of the 

plan sponsor? Commenters are 

encouraged to provide any data relevant 

to these questions. 

2. Participants, Beneficiaries, and Third

Parties—Use of Publicly Available

Information and Data

Question 20. Use of reports and data 

by participants and beneficiaries. 

Is there information reported to the 

Agencies, but not affirmatively required 

to be furnished by plans to participants 

and beneficiaries, that might be 

beneficial to participants and 

beneficiaries? If so, what information 

and to what benefit? Could such 

information be furnished in a costeffective manner or made available to 

participants and beneficiaries? If so, 

please describe these methods and how 

they could be cost effective. Is there 

evidence that participants and 

beneficiaries request to review any 

reports (or certain information or data) 

that is reported? 

Question 21. Use of reports and data 

by other entities. 

Do any of the reports required by 

ERISA and the Code fail to collect 

information that data users other than 

the Agencies, including the public at 

large, data aggregators, and participant 

advocates, would find useful? If so, 

which reports and information, and how 

could reports be modified to collect this 

information in a cost-effective manner? 

How would this information be used 

and how would requesting this 

information benefit retirement plan 

participants and beneficiaries, plans, or 

others? What information should be 

publicly available, and, if so, how might 

confidentiality, security, or other 

concerns be managed (e.g., protection of 

return information as required by Code 

section 6103)? To what extent do plans 

and plan service providers give third 

parties, such as data aggregators and 

consultants, access to plan data (e.g., 

plan investment lineups and associated 

fees, costs, and performance data) that 

could facilitate the development of 

analytic tools and comparative analyses 

that could be used by plan fiduciaries, 

participants, or beneficiaries to improve 

retirement outcomes? Are there 

impediments to the disclosure of useful 

plan data to such third parties that are 

inappropriate or that interfere with the 

cost-effective delivery of such analytic 

tools or comparative analyses? 

C. Additional Questions

Question 22. Coordination of

Agencies’ reporting and disclosure 

requirements. 

Would participants, beneficiaries, and 

plans benefit from increased 

coordination between the Agencies 

regarding one or more reporting or 

disclosure requirements and, if so, how? 

What steps could the Agencies take to 

achieve such coordination, for example, 

which specific disclosures, reports, or 

information could be effectively 

harmonized by the Agencies and how 

could the Agencies do so in a costeffective manner? 

Question 23. Alternative methods for 

information collection. 

SECURE 2.0 section 319(b)(3) 

explicitly provides that the Agencies 

may ‘‘conduct appropriate surveys and 

data collection to obtain any needed 

information.’’ If this authority were 

used, what data or information should 

be collected, and what are cost-effective 

methods that the Agencies could 

employ to collect such data or 

information, for example, by consulting 

with a balanced group of participant 

and employer representatives, 

conducting focus groups, preparing 

surveys, or holding a joint hearing? 

Question 24. Additional information. 

Is there any information or are there 

any suggestions that the Agencies 

should consider that are not addressed 

by the questions in this RFI and that 

may be important to achieve the desired 

effectiveness of reporting and 

disclosures as set forth in SECURE 2.0 

section 319? 

* * * * *

Signed at Washington, DC.

Rachel D. Levy, 

Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, 

Exempt Organizations, and Employment 

Taxes), Internal Revenue Service, Department 

of the Treasury. 

Helen H. Morrison, 

Benefits Tax Counsel, Department of the 

Treasury. 

Lisa M. Gomez, 

Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, Department of 

Labor. 

Gordon Hartogensis, 

Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01077 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P; 4830–01–P; 7709–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2023–0904] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Safety Zones; Coast Guard Sector 

Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring 

Safety Zones Update 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend and update its list of recurring 

safety zone regulations that take place in 

the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area 

of responsibility (AOR). Through this 

rule the current list of recurring safety 

zones is proposed to be updated with 

revisions, additional events, and 

removal of events that no longer take 

place. This proposed rule would reduce 

administrative costs involved in 

producing separate proposed rules for 

each individual recurring safety zone 

and serve to provide notice of the 

known recurring safety zones 

throughout the year. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before February 22, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2023–0904 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email MST2 Bryan 

Crane, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 502–779–5334, email 

SECOHV-WWM@USCG.MIL. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

AOR Area of responsibility 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio 

Valley 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive Order 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section

U.S.C. United States Code

AOR Area of Responsibility


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS