A 'BGC Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

P~~~~~~~~~A~~~,~~~P PE~S~O~. 1200 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4026 

Re: Bethlehem Steel Corporation Pension Plan, Case # 196603 

The Appeals Board reviewed your appeal of PBGC's April 26,2004 determination that you 

are not entitled to aRule-of-65 Retirement under the Bethlehem Plan. As explained below, we are 

denying your appeal. 

PBGC's Determination and Your Anveal 

PBGC's letter said that paragraph 2.7 of the 1999 Pension Agreement between Bethlehem 

and the United Steelworkers of America sets forth specific requirements relating to age, service 

and termination of employment for a participant to be eligible for Rule-of-65 Retirement. PBGC 

explained that, for a benefit to be guaranteeable under Federal law and PBGC regulations, a 

p&icipant must have met the eligibility requirements for the benefit on the plan's termination date. 

PBGC noted that the Bethlehem Plan terminated, effective December 18,2002, and that after that 

date there are no Mer service accruals. Although PBGC concluded that you met the age and 

service requirements for a Rule-of-65 benefit, PBGC determined you are not entitled to the benefit 

because, as of December 18,2002, Bethlehem had not advised you that you would not be offered 

suitable long-term employment and you had not incurred a break in continuous service. 

Your April 26, 2004 appeal described in detail your employment at various Bethlehem 

facilities from 1995 to 2003. You said you became entitled to Rule-of-65 Retirement due to a 

shutdown of a Bethlehem plant in November 19, 1995, and again in 1997, 1998 and 2003 due to 

different shutdowns at Sparrows Point. You believe you are entitled to Rule-of-65 Retirement 

under the "second shutdown" provisions in the 1999 Pension Agreement. 

Discussion 

The Bethlehem Plan terminated, effective December 18,2002, without sufficient assets to 

provide all benefits PBGC guarantees under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act (ERISA). The terms of the Plan, the provisions of ERISA, and PBGC regulations and policies 

, determine your entitlement to a guaranteed benefit. PBGC's regulations require that, to be entitled 
to a guaranteed benefit, a participant must satisfy the conditions of the plan necessary to establish 

the right to receive the benefit as of the date the Plan terminated. 

According to paragraph 2.7 of the 1999 Bethlehem Plan for the Steel Division (represented 

hourly employees) -- 

Any participant (i) who shall have had at least 20 years of Continuous Service 

as of his last day worked, and (ii) who has not attained the age of 55 years, and 

(iii) whose combined age and years of Continuous Service shall equal 65 or 

more but less than 80, and 

(a) whose Continuous Service is broken by reason of a layoff or disability, or 

(b) whose Continuous Service is not broken but who is absent fkom work 

by reason of a layoff resulting from his election to be placed on layoff 

status as a result of a permanent shutdown of a plant, department or 

subdivision thereof, 

and who has not been offered suitable long-term employment [as defied in 

Appendix A of the 1999 Pension agreement] shall be eligible to retire [under 

aRule-of-65 Retirement] . . . In the case of the Represented Hourly Employee 

Group [a participant will be eligible to retire] on the earlier of (A) the date the 

Participant's Employing Company determines that suitable long-term 

employment will not be offered; or (El) the date that is 24 months after the 

commencement date of a layoff referred to in paragraph 2.7(b) above. 

The records PBGC's auditors obtained from the former Plan Administrator and the information you 

submitted with your appeal show that you were an active employee of Bethlehem's Sparrows Point 

Ti Mill when the Plan terminated on December 18,2002. Bethlehem continued to operate the 

Tin Mill through May, 2003, when Bethlehem sold its assets (including the Ti Mill) to ISG. 

The records further show that (1) you had transferred to the Ti Mill in November, 1998, 

(2) when the Plan terminated on December 18, 2002, you were age 47.75 with 29.5 years of 

continuous service, (3) when the Plan terminated you were not absent fiom work by reason of a 

layoff resulting fiom a permanent shutdown of a Ti Mill plant, department or subdivision, and 

(4) your employment with Bethlehem ended May 6,2003. Thus, while you met the Rule-of-65 

age and service requirements under Plan paragraph 2.7 as of the Plan termination date, you did 

not meet the requirements of subparagraphs (a) or (b) as of that date. 

You said in your appeal that you are eligible for a Rule-of-65 benefit under the second 

shutdown rules of the Pension Agreement. According to your Employment Event History Pro$le 

(copy attached) and your appeal, you were laid off in November, 1995 as a result of the shutdown 

of Bethlehem's Basic Oxygen Furnace. You said you were offered and required to accept a 
transfer to the Sparrows Point (Maryland) Plate Mill in April, 1997, which you said closed 

75 weeks later. In September, 1998, you transferred to the Sparrows Point Cold Sheet Mill, which 

shut down 5 weeks after your transfer. You saidthat in September, 1998, you bid on and accepted 

a job at the Sparrows Point Ti Mill. As discussed above, you were working at the Tim Mill for 

about 5 years when the Plan terminated. 

Appendix A of the 1999 Pension Agreement provides certain protections to participants 

otherwise eligible for Rule-of-65 retirement who are offered and accept suitable long-term 

employment. The second shutdown rule to which you refer generally permits a participant 

involved in a second shutdown within two years of thefirst to refuse an offer of suitable long-term 

employment without losing eligibility for Rule-of-65 retirement due to the second shutdown. 

Because you were actively employed for more than five years after your last shutdown, the second 

shutdown rule does not apply to you. 

Decision 

For the reasons stated above, we must deny your appeal. While we are sympathetic to your - situation, PBGC and the Appeals Board must follow the terms of the Plan, the law and PBGC 

policy. This is the Agency's final decision concerning the Rule-of-65 issue and you may, if you 

wish, seek court review of this decision. 

If you have questions, please call PBGC's Customer Contact Center at 1-800-400-7242. 

Sincerely, 

Linda M. Mizzi 

Member, Appeals Board 

Attachment