Compliance June 10, 2011
SPARK Supports Extensions for 408(b)(2)
In a letter to the Department of Labor (DoL),
the SPARK Institute expressed its support for the proposed extension of the
applicability dates for fiduciary-level and participant-level
408(b)(2) disclosure rules.
Reported by PLANADVISER staff
The main reason SPARK gave for supporting an extension before the disclosure requirements take effect is to ensure the industry is prepared to comply. “Our members have been working diligently to understand and comply with the new disclosure requirements,” SPARK wrote. “However, despite all of the progress that has been made, our members remain concerned about their ability to comply with both sets of rules by the proposed extended compliance dates.”
SPARK offered several recommendations, including:
- The extension of the compliance date for the new 408(b)(2) rules for at least 180 days following the date of publication of the final rules in the Federal Register
- The extension of the compliance date for the participant disclosure rules to at least 120 days following the compliance date for the new 408(b)(2) rules
- The provision of a one year good faith compliance exception for plan sponsors under the participant disclosure rules with respect to the disclosure of investment information for all non-registered investment products
- The extension of the transitional guidance for benefit statements under the Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2006-03 to the participant disclosure rules until such time as a new electronic communications safe harbor and other rules are issued
The Spark Institute’s complete letter is available here.
You Might Also Like:
PTE 2020-02 and Compensation-Related Conflicts
PTE 2020-02 does not explicitly ban any adviser practices, but does require reasonable conflict mitigation policies regarding compensation.
DB and DC Participant Access Update
The BLS’ most recent data reports 67% of private workers have access to a defined contribution plan and 15% can...
Fiduciary Rule Lawsuit Leans on Prior Court Rebuttal
An advocacy group for independent insurance advisers alleges the DOL’s Retirement Security Rule is similar to a proposal struck down...