Reg-101701-16

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–101701–16]
RIN 1545–BN24

Additional Limitation on Suspension of
Benefits Applicable to Certain Pension
Plans Under the Multiemployer
Pension Reform Act of 2014
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and notice of public hearing.
AGENCY:

The Multiemployer Pension
Reform Act of 2014 (‘‘MPRA’’), which
was enacted by Congress as part of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2015, relates to
multiemployer defined benefit pension
plans that are projected to have
insufficient funds, within a specified
timeframe, to pay the full plan benefits
to which individuals will be entitled
(referred to as plans in ‘‘critical and
declining status’’). Under MPRA, the
sponsor of such a plan is permitted to
reduce the pension benefits payable to
plan participants and beneficiaries if
certain conditions and limitations are
satisfied (referred to in MPRA as a
‘‘suspension of benefits’’). One specific
limitation governs the application of a
suspension of benefits under any plan
that includes benefits directly
attributable to a participant’s service
with any employer that has withdrawn
from the plan in a complete withdrawal,
paid its full withdrawal liability, and,
pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement, assumed liability for
providing benefits to participants and
beneficiaries equal to any benefits for
such participants and beneficiaries
reduced as a result of the financial
status of the plan. This document
contains proposed regulations that
would provide guidance relating to this
specific limitation. These regulations
affect active, retired, and deferred
vested participants and beneficiaries
under any such multiemployer plan in
critical and declining status as well as
employers contributing to, and sponsors
and administrators of, those plans.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 15, 2016. Outlines of topics to be
discussed at the public hearing
scheduled for March 22, 2016 must be
received by March 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–101701–16), room
5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O.
Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station,

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:10 Feb 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions
may be hand-delivered Monday through
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and
4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–101701–
16), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC, or sent electronically
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–
101701–16). The public hearing will be
held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the regulations, the
Department of the Treasury MPRA
guidance information line at (202) 622–
1559; concerning submissions of
comments, the hearing, and/or being
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, Regina Johnson at
(202) 317–6901 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains proposed
amendments to the Income Tax
Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under
section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue
Code (Code), as amended by section 201
of the Multiemployer Pension Reform
Act of 2014, Division O of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law
113–235 (128 Stat. 2130 (2014))
(MPRA).1 As amended, section 432(e)(9)
permits plan sponsors of certain
multiemployer plans to reduce the plan
benefits payable to participants and
beneficiaries by plan amendment
(referred to in the statute as a
‘‘suspension of benefits’’) if specified
conditions are satisfied. A plan sponsor
that seeks to implement a suspension of
benefits must submit an application that
the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation and the Secretary
of Labor (generally referred to in this
preamble as the Treasury Department,
PBGC, and Labor Department,
respectively), is required by the statute
to approve upon finding that certain
specified conditions are satisfied. One
condition is that the plan is in critical
and declining status, meaning that the
plan is projected to have insufficient
funds, within a specified timeframe, to
1 Section 201 of MPRA makes parallel
amendments to section 305 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Public
Law 93–406 (88 Stat. 829 (1974)), as amended
(ERISA). The Treasury Department has interpretive
jurisdiction over the subject matter of these
provisions under ERISA as well as the Code. See
also section 101 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1978 (43 FR 47713). Thus, these proposed Treasury
regulations issued under section 432 of the Code
apply as well for purposes of section 305 of ERISA.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

7253

pay the full benefits to which
individuals will be entitled under the
plan.
Another condition, set forth in section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii), is a specific limitation
on how a suspension of benefits must be
applied under a plan that, as described
in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III), includes
benefits that are directly attributable to
a participant’s service with any
employer that has, prior to the date
MPRA was enacted, withdrawn from the
plan in a complete withdrawal under
section 4203 of ERISA, paid the full
amount of the employer’s withdrawal
liability under section 4201(b)(1) of
ERISA or an agreement with the plan,
and, pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement, assumed liability for
providing benefits to participants and
beneficiaries of the plan under a
separate, single-employer plan
sponsored by the employer, in an
amount equal to any amount of benefits
for these participants and beneficiaries
reduced as a result of the financial
status of the plan. Such an employer is
referred to in this preamble as a
‘‘subclause III employer,’’ and the
agreement to assume liability for those
benefits is referred to as a ‘‘make-whole
agreement.’’
If the specific limitation of section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii) applies to a plan, then
section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(I) requires that
the suspension of benefits first be
applied to the maximum extent
permissible to benefits attributable to a
participant’s service with an employer
that withdrew from the plan and failed
to pay (or is delinquent with respect to
paying) the full amount of its
withdrawal liability under section
4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an agreement
with the plan. Such an employer is
referred to in this preamble as a
‘‘subclause I employer.’’ Second, under
section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(II), except as
provided in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III),
a suspension of benefits must be applied
to all other benefits. Third, under
section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III), a
suspension must be applied to benefits
under a plan that are directly
attributable to a participant’s service
with a subclause III employer.
On June 19, 2015, the Treasury
Department and the IRS published
temporary regulations (TD 9723) under
section 432(e)(9) in the Federal Register
(80 FR 35207) providing general
guidance regarding section 432(e)(9) as
well as outlining the requirements for a
plan sponsor of a plan that is in critical
and declining status to apply for
approval of a suspension of benefits and
for the Treasury Department to begin
processing such an application. A notice
of proposed rulemaking cross-

E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM

11FEP1

7254

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

referencing the temporary regulations
(REG–102648–15) and providing
additional guidance was published in
the same issue of the Federal Register
(80 FR 35262). Neither the temporary
nor the proposed regulations include
guidance regarding the limitation under
section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii).
On October 23, 2015, the Treasury
Department published a notice in the
Federal Register (80 FR 64508)
regarding an application for a proposed
suspension of benefits, which
represented that the plan is of the type
to which section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)
applies. The notice requested public
comments on all aspects of the
application, including with respect to
the interpretation of section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii) that is reflected in the
application. The Treasury Department
and the IRS have considered the
comments received in response to that
notice in developing these proposed
regulations.
Explanation of Provisions
These proposed regulations would
amend the Income Tax Regulations (26
CFR part 1) to provide guidance
regarding section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii). The
Treasury Department consulted with
PBGC and the Labor Department in
developing these proposed regulations.
These proposed regulations would add
a new paragraph (d)(8) to proposed
§ 1.432(e)(9)-1 and do not otherwise
affect the provisions of the proposed
regulations published in the Federal
Register (80 FR 35262) on June 19, 2015.
Section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii) sets forth a
rule that limits how a suspension may
be applied under a plan that includes
benefits that are directly attributable to
a participant’s service with any
employer that, as defined in section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III), has withdrawn,
paid the full amount of its withdrawal
liability, and, pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement, assumed liability
for providing benefits to participants
and beneficiaries of the plan under a
separate, single-employer plan
sponsored by the employer, in an
amount equal to any amount of benefits
for such participants and beneficiaries
reduced as a result of the financial
status of the multiemployer plan. In
determining how a suspension should
be allocated consistent with the
statutory framework, the Treasury
Department and the IRS analyzed the
statute and applied principles of
statutory construction.
Subclause (I) of section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii) provides that the
suspension of benefits should first be
applied ‘‘to the maximum extent
permissible.’’ Accordingly, the Treasury

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:10 Feb 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Department and the IRS conclude that
reductions with respect to benefits
attributable to service with a subclause
I employer must be applied first to the
maximum extent permissible before
reductions are permitted to be applied
to any other benefits. Consequently,
these proposed regulations require that
a suspension of benefits under a plan
that is subject to section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)
be applied to the maximum extent
permissible to benefits attributable to
service with a subclause I employer.
Only if such a suspension is not
reasonably estimated to achieve the
level that is necessary to enable the plan
to avoid insolvency may a suspension
then be applied to other benefits that are
permitted to be suspended and that are
attributable to a participant’s service
with other employers.
In contrast, subclause (II) does not
include the phrase ‘‘to the maximum
extent permissible,’’ and therefore the
Treasury Department and the IRS have
concluded that the best interpretation of
section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii) is that a
suspension need not be applied to the
maximum extent permissible to benefits
described in subclause (II) before any
suspension is applied to benefits
described in subclause (III).2 This
interpretation is also consistent with the
language in subclause (II) providing for
application of a suspension ‘‘except as
provided in subclause (III),’’
contemplating a coordinated application
of those subclauses, which are to be
applied ‘‘second’’ and ‘‘third,’’
respectively.3 Because of the order of
application of subclauses (II) and (III)
and the coordinated application
described in the preceding sentence, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
conclude that the best interpretation of
section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii) is that the
application of a suspension to benefits
2 See Loughrin v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2384,
2390 (2014) (‘‘We have often noted that when
‘Congress includes particular language in one
section of a statute but omits it in another’—let
alone in the very next provision—this Court
‘presume[s]’ that Congress intended a difference in
meaning.’’ (quoting Russello v. United States, 464
U.S. 16, 23 (1983)). To read subclause (II) to require
that benefits be suspended ‘‘to the maximum extent
permissible’’ without that language would either
render that language superfluous in subclause (I),
see Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166,
1178 (2013) (‘‘[T]he canon against surplusage is
strongest when an interpretation would render
superfluous another part of the same statutory
scheme.’’), or effectively rewrite subclause (II) to
include that requirement, see Hall v. United States,
132 S. Ct. 1882, 1893 (2012) (‘‘[I]t is not for us to
rewrite the statute.’’).
3 See Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314
(2009) (rejecting constructions ‘‘at odds with the
basic interpretive canon that ‘ ‘‘[a] statute should be
construed [to give effect] to all its provisions, so
that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void
or insignificant’’ ’ ’’ (quoting Hibbs v. Winn, 542
U.S. 88, 101 (2004)).

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

described in subclause (II) must be
greater than or equal to the application
of the suspension to benefits described
in subclause (III).
Under these proposed regulations, a
suspension would not be permitted to
reduce benefits directly attributable to
service with a subclause III employer,
unless other benefits are first reduced
and are reduced to at least the same
extent (thus protecting a subclause III
employer from the possibility that the
suspension would be expressly
designed to take advantage of the
employer’s agreement to make
participants and beneficiaries whole for
the reductions). Under these proposed
regulations, a suspension would not
violate this restriction if no participant’s
benefits that are directly attributable to
service with a subclause III employer
are reduced more than that individual’s
benefits would have been reduced if,
holding constant the benefit formula,
work history, and all other relevant
factors used to determine the
individual’s benefits, those benefits
were attributable to that participant’s
service with any other employer.
These proposed regulations would
also provide that the benefits described
in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III) are any
benefits for a participant under a plan
that are directly attributable to service
with a subclause III employer, without
regard to whether the employer has
assumed liability for providing benefits
to the participant that were reduced as
a result of the financial status of the
plan. For example, if a participant
commenced receiving retirement
benefits under a plan, which are directly
attributable to service with such an
employer, before the date the employer
entered into a make-whole agreement,
then the participant’s benefits would be
described in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III)
even if those benefits were not covered
by the make-whole agreement. This
interpretation is based on the statutory
language in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III),
which defines the benefits to which that
subclause applies as those benefits that
are directly attributable to service with
an employer that has met the conditions
set forth in section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III)(aa) and (bb). In
other words, the statutory provision
refers to benefits directly attributable to
service with an employer described in
subclause III, and not only to benefits
covered by the make-whole agreement.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
are also considering an alternative to the
ordering rule set forth in these proposed
regulations. Under the alternative, as
under the proposed regulations, the rule
would require that a suspension of
benefits under a plan that is subject to

E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM

11FEP1

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules
section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii) be applied to
the maximum extent permissible to
benefits attributable to service with a
subclause I employer before any
suspension is applied to benefits
attributable to service with other
employers. However, in contrast to the
approach described in these proposed
regulations, the alternative would
require that any such suspension of
benefits be applied to provide for a
lesser reduction in benefits that are
directly attributable to service with a
subclause III employer than to benefits
that are attributable to any other service.
The alternative approach could be
satisfied if, for example, benefits that are
directly attributable to service with a
subclause III employer are reduced less,
on a percentage basis, than benefits
would have been reduced if, holding
constant the benefit formula, work
history, and all other relevant factors
used to determine benefits, those
benefits were attributable to service
with any other employer.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
recognize that the language of section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii) has similarities to other
statutory provisions that establish
priority categories requiring claims to be
fully satisfied under each earlier
category before any claims are permitted
to be satisfied under any subsequent
category. For example, section 4044 of
ERISA provides for the allocation of
pension plan assets in the event of a
distress termination and for categories
of payments to be made ‘‘in the
following order:’’ ‘‘First,’’ ‘‘Second,’’
‘‘Third,’’ ‘‘Fourth,’’ ‘‘Fifth’’ and
‘‘Sixth.’’ 4
If such an approach were applied
under section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii), then the
maximum permitted suspension would
be required to be imposed with respect
to benefits described in each subclause
before any suspension could apply to
benefits described in a successive
subclause. Under that approach, any
suspension of benefits would first have
to be applied to the maximum extent
permissible to benefits attributable to a
participant’s service with a subclause I
employer. Only if such a suspension
were not reasonably estimated to
achieve the level that is necessary to
enable the plan to avoid insolvency
would the suspension then be applied
to other benefits that are permitted to be
suspended and that are attributable to a
4 The

regulations interpreting this provision
provide: ‘‘If the plan has sufficient assets to pay for
all benefits in a priority category, the remaining
assets shall then be allocated to the next lower
priority category. This process shall be repeated
until all benefits in priority categories 1 through 6
have been provided or until all available plan assets
have been allocated.’’ See 29 CFR 4044.10(d).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:10 Feb 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

participant’s service with any other
employers (except for benefits that are
directly attributable to service with a
subclause III employer). Under this
approach, only if the additional
suspension were not reasonably
estimated to achieve the level that is
necessary to enable the plan to avoid
insolvency would the suspension then
be applied also to benefits directly
attributable to a participant’s service
with a subclause III employer.
Based on the language of the statute
as well as principles of statutory
construction described in this preamble,
the proposed regulations and alternative
rule do not reflect the approach
described in the preceding paragraph.5
In addition, in contrast to section 4044
of ERISA, which includes the language
‘‘in the following order,’’ there is no
similar generally applicable ordering
language in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii) and
section 305(e)(9)(D)(vii) of ERISA. As
under section 4044 of ERISA, in
enacting section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii) and its
counterpart under ERISA, Congress
could readily have used consistent
language in describing the scope of
permissible benefit suspensions with
respect to the benefits described in each
of the three statutory subclauses. Instead
of doing so, Congress created a
distinction in describing the treatment
of benefits described in the three
subclauses in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii).6
For these reasons, the Treasury
Department and the IRS have concluded
that the best reading of Congressional
intent is that a suspension of benefits
described in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(II)
does not need to be applied ‘‘to the
maximum extent permissible’’ before
any suspension is permitted to be
applied to benefits described in section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii)(III). However, the
Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on whether ‘‘to the
maximum extent permissible’’ should
be applied to benefits described in
subclause II in the final regulations.
Effective/Applicability Dates
These regulations are proposed to be
effective on and apply with respect to
suspensions for which the approval or
denial is issued on or after the date of
publication of the Treasury decision
adopting these rules as final regulations
in the Federal Register.
Special Analyses
Certain IRS regulations, including this
one, are exempt from the requirements
5 See

footnotes 2 and 3 and accompanying text.
is, the phrase ‘‘to the maximum extent
permissible’’ appears in subclause (I) but not in
subclause (II).
6 That

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

7255

of Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented and reaffirmed by
Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a
regulatory impact assessment is not
required. It also has been determined
that section 553(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does
not apply to these regulations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. chapter 6) requires an agency
to consider whether the rules it
proposes will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In this case,
the IRS and the Treasury Department
believe that the regulations likely would
not have a ‘‘significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 605. This certification
is based on the fact that the number of
small entities affected by this rule is
unlikely to be substantial because it is
unlikely that a substantial number of
small multiemployer plans in critical
and declining status are subject to the
limitation contained in section
432(e)(9)(D)(vii). Pursuant to section
7805(f) of the Code, this notice of
proposed rulemaking has been
submitted to the Chief Counsel of
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
Comments and Public Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
comments that are submitted timely to
the Treasury Department and the IRS as
prescribed in this preamble in the
ADDRESSES section. The Treasury
Department and the IRS request
comments on all aspects of these
proposed regulations, including the
interaction of the provisions of the
proposed regulation with the limitation
described in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vi)
relating to the requirement that a
suspension of benefits be equitably
distributed.
In addition to the comment request
included in this preamble under the
‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’ heading,
the Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments regarding the
alternative rule also described under the
‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’ heading or
any other alternative. With respect to
the alternative rule described in this
preamble, comments are specifically
requested regarding whether satisfaction
of the alternative rule described in this
preamble should be required on an
individual-by-individual basis or on an
aggregate basis (comparing the aggregate
suspension of benefits that are directly
attributable to service with a subclause
III employer to what the aggregate

E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM

11FEP1

7256

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

would have been if, holding constant
the benefit formula, work history, and
all other relevant factors used to
determine benefits, those benefits were
attributable to service with any other
employer).
All comments will be available for
public inspection and copying at
www.regulations.gov or upon request.
Please Note: All comments will be made
available to the public. Do not include
any personally identifiable information
(such as Social Security number, name,
address, or other contact information) or
confidential business information that
you do not want publicly disclosed. All
comments may be posted on the Internet
and can be retrieved by most Internet
search engines.
A public hearing on these proposed
regulations has been scheduled for
March 22, 2016 beginning at 10 a.m. in
the Auditorium, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. Due to building
security procedures, visitors must enter
at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In
addition, all visitors must present photo
identification to enter the building.
Because of access restrictions, visitors
will not be admitted beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)
apply to the hearing. Persons who wish
to present oral comments at the hearing
must submit written or electronic
comments by March 15, 2016, and an
outline of topics to be discussed and the
amount of time to be devoted to each
topic by March 15, 2016. A period of 10
minutes will be allotted to each person
for making comments. An agenda
showing the scheduling of the speakers
will be prepared after the deadline for
receiving outlines has passed. Copies of
the agenda will be available free of
charge at the hearing.
Contact Information
For general questions regarding these
regulations, please contact the
Department of the Treasury MPRA
guidance information line at (202) 622–
1559 (not a toll-free number). For
information regarding a specific
application for a suspension of benefits,
please contact the Treasury Department
at (202) 622–1534 (not a toll-free
number).
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:10 Feb 10, 2016

Jkt 238001

Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:

■

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.432(e)(9)–1 is added
to read as follows:

■

§ 1.432(e)(9)–1 Benefit suspensions for
multiemployer plans in critical and
declining status.

(a) through (c) [Reserved]
(d) Limitations on suspension. (1)
through (7) [Reserved]
(8) Additional rules for plans
described in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)—
(i) In general. In the case of a plan that
includes the benefits described in
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, any
suspension of benefits under this
section shall—
(A) First, be applied to the maximum
extent permissible to benefits
attributable to a participant’s service for
an employer that withdrew from the
plan and failed to pay (or is delinquent
with respect to paying) the full amount
of its withdrawal liability under section
4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an agreement
with the plan;
(B) Second, except as provided by
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, be
applied to all other benefits that may be
suspended under this section; and
(C) Third, be applied to benefits under
a plan that are directly attributable to a
participant’s service with any employer
that has, prior to December 16, 2014—
(1) Withdrawn from the plan in a
complete withdrawal under section
4203 of ERISA and paid the full amount
of the employer’s withdrawal liability
under section 4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an
agreement with the plan, and
(2) Pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement, assumed liability for
providing benefits to participants and
beneficiaries of the plan under a
separate, single-employer plan
sponsored by the employer, in an
amount equal to any amount of benefits
for such participants and beneficiaries
reduced as a result of the financial
status of the plan.
(ii) Application of suspensions to
benefits that are directly attributable to
a participant’s service with certain
employers—(A) Greater reduction in
certain benefits not permitted. A
suspension of benefits under this
section must not be applied to provide
for a greater reduction in benefits

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of
this section than the reduction that is
applied to benefits described in
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(B) of this section.
This requirement is satisfied if no
participant’s benefits that are directly
attributable to service with an employer
described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of
this section are reduced more than that
participant’s benefits would have been
reduced if, holding the benefit formula,
work history, and all relevant factors
used to compute benefits constant, those
benefits were attributable to service
with an employer that is not described
in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section.
(B) Application of limitation to
benefits of participants with respect to
which the employer has not assumed
liability. Benefits under a plan that are
directly attributable to a participant’s
service with an employer described in
paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section
include all such benefits without regard
to whether the employer has assumed
liability for providing benefits to the
participant that were reduced as a result
of the financial status of the plan as
described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of
this section. Thus, all benefits under a
plan that are directly attributable to a
participant’s service with an employer
described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of
this section are subject to the limitation
in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)(A) of this section,
even if the employer has not, pursuant
to a collective bargaining agreement that
satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of this section, assumed
liability for providing those benefits to
participants and beneficiaries of the
plan.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016–02772 Filed 2–9–16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket Number USCG–2016–0022]
RIN 1625–AA08

Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run,
Cooper River, and Town Creek
Reaches, Charleston, SC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a safety zone on the waters of

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM

11FEP1