Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7253 

1Section 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. 

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 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: 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with any employer that has withdrawn 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, 

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 

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 crossVerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7254 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2See 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.’’). 

3See 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)). 

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 

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 

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 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7255 

4The 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). 

5See footnotes 2 and 3 and accompanying text. 

6That is, the phrase ‘‘to the maximum extent 

permissible’’ appears in subclause (I) but not in 

subclause (II). 

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 

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 

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 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a safety zone on the waters of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS