measure”). Viewed in light of the primary, accepted definition of “somewhat,” the SPDs appropriately described the impact of the offset. Plaintiffs further argue that the 1996 Retirement Plan SPD was misleading because it did not disclose that the Secured Benefit Account would be calculated based on the value of the Account projected to normal retirement age. (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss the Am. Compl. at 8-9.) They claim they were misled because the SPD would be offset by the “value of [a participant’s] SBA balance” and did not disclose that the value of the Secured Benefit Account balance included interest through normal retirement age. (Id.) As discussed above, § 1022 does not require a summary plan description to go into this level of detail. See Stahl, 875 F.2d at 1408 (<HOLDING>). In any event, the 1996 SPD contains more than
holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description holding that a summary plan description need only provide information about the general circumstances in which benefits could be lost holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled holding that making intentional representations about the future of plan benefits may be an act of plan administration holding that an spd need only be specific enough to enable ordinary employee to sense when there is a danger that benefits could be lost or diminished