SARs (get masks to cover your mouth from the germs)

[Bri]

So hey, anyone see this new addition of a Paperwork Reduction Act notice to the DOL's model Summary Annual Report?

Not sure how half a page of unrelated text reduces paperwork.  Also.....is there a deadline where this becomes mandatory?  It's enough of a slog to get an SAR to fit on one page after it's been generated by our software.

I feel like deleting it until something more obvious and official dictates it has to , has to, be in there.

What say the rest of ya?

Thanks!

--bri

[duckthing]

I'm with you, though I'm leaving it in for now just to be safe.

I don't understand why this should be on an SAR in the first place. The SAR is not an attempt to obtain any information whatsoever from anybody. Maybe I'm just out of the loop on the thought process here, but to me none of this language makes any sense on this document. In particular, things like:

Quote

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less than one minute per notice (approximately 3 hours and 11 minutes per plan).

How is this relevant to the participant who's looking at the SAR? On the off chance a participant actually reads this, they're likely to come away thinking they're required to provide some information in response.

[Peter Gulia]

Neither of the forms published in 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104b-10 includes a notice of the kind described above.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ef4e6956d342e1f75a4ff023516b780b&mc=true&node=se29.9.2520_1104b_610&rgn=div8

 

[Bri]

The link from the DOL's site itself featured this, and ASC's online portal to generate the notices included the PRA statement as well.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/.../form-sar-pension.docx

 

So perhaps it was the DOL's requirement on their sample to include the PRA statement, but it wasn't supposed to be picked up by a software vendor as part of the actual notice?

 

(I can only get so intrigued by the topic, of course....)

[RatherBeGolfing]

3 hours ago, Bri said:

So perhaps it was the DOL's requirement on their sample to include the PRA statement, but it wasn't supposed to be picked up by a software vendor as part of the actual notice?

No.  The DOL wants the the statement included on the model notice.  Most vendors starting including the change in June.  As I understand it, software providers that work with EFAST on forms and notices received word that if the model notice is used it needs to include the statement, but SARs that had already been issued did not need to be reissued.

Of course, you could always volunteer to be our benefitslink test case....  If you take the statement off your SAR and the DOL does not kick your door idown by December 31 we should all be good to go ???

[Bri]

Okay, but then how does that reconcile with Mr. Gulia's discovery above that the Federal Register version does NOT include the PRA statement?

[RatherBeGolfing]

2 hours ago, Bri said:

Okay, but then how does that reconcile with Mr. Gulia's discovery above that the Federal Register version does NOT include the PRA statement?

The DOL model SAR DOES have it.  There is no requirement that you have to use the model notice, you can use any notice you want as long as it is compliant.  I think most vendors use the model notice for the simple reason that they know it is enough to satisfy the DOL.  If you want to rely on what you get from the vendor, use it as provided.  I don't think its a bigger mystery than that.  You could always print two sided ?‍♂️

[Peter Gulia]

The regulation states:  "[T]he summary annual report furnished to participants and beneficiaries of an employee pension benefit plan pursuant to this section shall consist of a completed copy of the form prescribed in paragraph (d)(3) of this section[.]"

Even if the source of a text is the Labor department, some practitioners might be reluctant to rely on it if there is no rule or regulation published in the Federal Register.

 

[RatherBeGolfing]

17 minutes ago, Fiduciary Guidance Counsel said:

The regulation states:  "[T]he summary annual report furnished to participants and beneficiaries of an employee pension benefit plan pursuant to this section shall consist of a completed copy of the form prescribed in paragraph (d)(3) of this section[.]"

Even if the source of a text is the Labor department, some practitioners might be reluctant to rely on it if there is no rule or regulation published in the Federal Register.

 

100% agree.  My point is that most practitioners that use vendors to produce documents, including forms and notices, count on some sort of reliance on the product.  I'm not saying the notice would be non-compliant without the PRA statement, just that the vendor probably wont back you up if you do.  

The reason so many vendors updates their notice was because the DOL updated their model notice. 

Personally, it's not enough of an inconvenience to go change the vendor generated notice.

 

[Peter Gulia]

RatherBeGolfing, that explanation makes plenty of business sense.

The above and liked-to descriptions about how the gibberish arrived suggest some possibility that a source is not the Labor department directly but its EFAST contractor.

Or am I imagining too much?

 

[RatherBeGolfing]

12 minutes ago, Fiduciary Guidance Counsel said:

RatherBeGolfing, that explanation makes plenty of business sense.

The above and liked-to descriptions about how the gibberish arrived suggest some possibility that a source is not the Labor department directly but its EFAST contractor.

Or am I imagining too much?

 

I was told by one vendor that they made the change after the DOL changed its model notice (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/model-sar-language-iqpa-audit-waiver.docx).  

I know another vendor made its change after receiving word from EFAST that it should be changed.  

I have not heard anyone mention confirmation directly from the DOL. I think it is one of those situations where if you ask the DOL whether you have to include the PRA statement on their model notice, their answer is "this is where you can find our model notice, but there is no requirement that you use the model notice provided".  

[Kristina]

As I heard from EBSA, the model language was just that.  A Model.  There is no requirement to include the PRA language.  

I believe the PRA language was included in the OMB submission and whoever released the modified SAR after approval just left the language on it.

There is nothing like the PRA language to dissuade participants from reading plan disclosures.  It doesn't apply to them or their plan and means nothing to them.

[Bri]

I did just take advantage of the email address for PRA comments to the DOL embedded in those extra paragraphs.  They got a small chunk of my mind, but hopefully not too big a slice.