"v(\ PBGe Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Protecting America's Pensions 1200 K Str,eet. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4026 

NOV 302007 

Re: Consolidated Appeal for 246 Participants in the Thunderbird Mining Co. 

Pensipn Plan (the "Plan"), Case 199929 

Dear I f: 

The Appeals Board reviewed the May 31,2007 appeal brief that you filed on behalf 

of a group of "approximately 240 participants" concerning PBGC's determinations of their 

vested Plan benefits. For the reasons we state below, the Appeals Board concluded that 

PBGC is unable to guarantee shutdown benefits for your clients because Thunderbird 

Mining Company was not permanently shut down before the Plan terminated on July 24, 

2003. 

Scope of this Consolidated Appeals Board Decision 

The Appeals Board has confirmed that you filed timely appeals on behalf ofthe 246 

participants listed on the Enclosure, most of whom were granted extensions of time to 

appeal their PBGC benefit determinations through requests submitted by themselves or by 

you on their behalf on January 22, January 29, February 5, and March 6, 2007. The 

Appeals Board exercised its discretion under Section 4003.56 of PBGC's regulations and 

consolidated the appeals that you filed on behalf of these 246 individuals. The Board 

concluded that the respective appeals arise out of the same or similar facts, and that they 

seek the same or similar relief. 

This Appeals Board decision is PBGC's final agency action only with respect to the 

issues raised in your appeal brief. Some of your clients submitted separate appeal letters 

concerning individual issues unrelated to shutdown benefits and they will receive separate 

decision letters from the Appeals Board regarding their individual issues. The names of 

participants who raised other issues are highlighted in boldface on the Enclosure. 

Background 

The Plan was originally effective July 31, 1966 for hourly employees of Eveleth 

Taconite Company covered by its collective bargaining agreement with the United 

Steelworkers of America ("USW"). On January 1, 1968, a separate plan was established 

to cover salaried employees, both represented and non-represented. 
-2-

On January 1, 1977, the plans were assumed by Oglebay Norton Company. On 

May 23, 1997, Oglebay Norton's taconite mining operations spun off into a separate 

company, Thunderbird Mining Company ("T-Bird"), which assumed the plans. On 

January 1, 1998, the plan for salaried employees split into s~parate plans for represented 

and non-represented employees. 

On April 27, 2000, the two plans covering salaried employees and the original plan 

covering hourly employees merged into one plan, taking the name of the hourly plan. 

T-Bird, a subsidiary of Eveleth Mines LLC (sometimes referred to as EVTAC) and 

doing business as EVTAC Mining, was a private employer that produced taconite pellets, 

which supply the iron ore needed for the production of iron and steel. EVT AC's facilities 

were located in and around Eveleth, Minnesota. EVT AC . was owned by Rouge Steel 

(45%), AK Steel (40%), and Stelco (15%). EVTAC's business arrangement was to sell its 

pellets to the owners. . 

On January 1, 2003, Rouge Steel elected to purchase pellets from another source, 

Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., and AK Steel switched most of its requirements to Iron are Co. of 

Canada. . 

On February 14, 2003, T -Bird sent a confidential letter to the Director of District 11 

of the USW informing the USW of its "intention ... to close permanently the Eveleth Mines, 

LLC, dba EVTAC Mining operation" due to "a lack of customer orders". The letter noted, 

however, that T -Bird was prepared to meet with representatives of the USW to discuss 

T-Bird's "proposed course of action" and to "suggest alternative courses." 

On March 10, 2003, T-Bird issued a notice to its employees under the Worker 

Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act. The notice advised the employees 

that the entire plant was to be closed and that the planned action was to be temporary but 

only if anticipated pellet orders were received during the shutdown period. The notice did 

not specify the length of the shutdown period. 

On March 17,2003, T-Bird filed a "Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance" with 

the Department of Labor ("DOL"). The petition stated that "closure will be permanent if no 

additional orders are received." The DOL denied the petition (68 FR 33196, June 3,2003). 

Stelco's contract with EVTAC expired on May 14, 2003 and was renewed at a much 

lower requirement. 

EVT AC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota on May 1, 2003, citing the loss of the bulk ·of its contract 

business. T-Bird filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 15, 2003 in the same 

court. The Minnesota District Court subsequently consolidated the bankruptcies. And on 

May 15, 2003, T-Bird ceased operations and laid off substantially all of its employees. 
-3-

On June 5,2003, T-'Sird again filed a "Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance", 

this time stating that "EVT AC Mining is now totally shut down and only a skeleton crew is 

employed." The DOL granted the petition (68 FR 43372, July 22, 2003) .. 

On June 15,2003, T-Bird laid off all of its remaining employees. 

On or about July 5,2003, former USW Local 6860 President Joseph Strlekar met 

with Congressman Jim Oberstar and EVT AC President Howard Hilshorst. During that 

meeting, Congressman Oberstar discussed EVT AC's failure to secure new sales contracts 

and recommended that Hilshorst negotiate with Laiwu, a Chinese corporation, either to 

secure sales contracts with Laiwu or, alternatively, sell EVTAC's assets to Laiwu. 

After receiving notice of T-Sird's Chapter 11 filing, PBGC began its investigations· 

regarding the Plan's prospects. PBGC engaged the services of a private Gansulting group. 

Based on the consultant's analysis of EVTAC's prospects and PBGC's own calculations of 

the contributions needed to continue the Plan, PBGC issued a Notiqe of Determination on 

July 23,2003, stating that PBGC determined, pursuant to Section 4042(a)(2),(4) of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that (1) the 

Plan will be unable to pay benefits when due, and (2) the possible long-run loss of ~he 

PBGC with respect to the Plan may reasonably be expected to increase unreasonably if . 

the Plan is not terminated. The Notice further stated that PBGC determined, pursuant to 

ERISA§ 4042(c), (1) that the Plan must be terminated in order to avoid an unreasonable 

. increase in the liability of the PBGC insurance fund and in order to protect the interests of 

the Plan's participants; (2) that PBGC should assume trusteeship of the terminated Plan; 

and (3) that July 24,2003 should be established as the Plan's termination date. PBGC 

sent notice of its determinations to T-Bird, in its role as the Plan's sponsor, and the USW. 

PBGCalso published notice of the determinations in one national newspaper and several 

Minnesota newspapers. 

PBGC proceeded to file an action against T-Bird, in its role as the Plan's sponsor, in 

the United States District Court forthe District of Minnesota on July 24, 2003 to enforce its 

administrative determinations by asking the court to (1) terminate the Plan, (2) appoint 

PBGC as the Plan's trustee, and (3) establish July 24, 2003 as the Plan's termination date. 

The USW filed a motion for leave to intervene as a party defendant, suggesting that the 

Pian's termination date should be postponed to a later date. 

On or before October 8, 2003, representatives of Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and the 

Chinese state-owned Laiwu Steel Group, Ltd. made a joint offer to purchase EVTAC's 

assets. According to an Associated Press wire report of the offer, Congressman Oberstar 

"helped broker the deal because of his relationship with Yang Jiechi, the Chinese 

ambassador to the United States." 

On or before November 14,2003, Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and Laiwu Steel Group, Ltd. 

filed a draft asset-purchase agreement under which EVTAC's taconite business would 

become United Taconite, LLC.On November 16,2003, T-Bird'sChapter 11 bankruptcy 

was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On November25, 2003, U.S. Bankruptcy Court 
- 4"'" 

, Judge Gregory F. Kishel approved the sale of EVTAC to Cleveland-Cliffs and Laiwu Steel 

Group after a two-hour sale hearing. Duluth News-Tribune reported in the Final Edition of 

its November 26, 2003 newspaper that former EVTAC President Hilshorst testified at that 

sales hearing that: "Hilshorst, Vice President-Controller James Hecemovich and Vice 

President-Treasurer Robert Verville had worked sinc,e spring with several interested parties 

to find a new owner Of' pellet contra~ts." 

The Court granted the USW's motion to intervene as a party defendant and, on 

December 3, 2003, the USW filed its Answer to PBGC's July ,24, 2003 complaint. In that 

answer, the USW raised three affirmative defenses, namely, (1) the Complaint failed to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) termination ofthe Plan effective July 24, 

, 2003 would not be in the best interests of the participants of the Plan and would be 

contrary to law; and (3) termination of the Plan effective July 24,2003 would be contrary to 

the justifiable expectations of the participants of the Plan. 

In the meantime, on December 1, 2003, after obtaining approval of the bankruptcy 

court, EVTAC closed on a transaction with United Taconite" LLC ("United"), under which 

United purchased all of EVTAC's operating assets. According to the USW's Settlement 

Agreement with EVTAC and T-Bird, on that date, T-Bird permanently laid off all of its 

Employees, except three members of management, and through December, United hired 

substantially all of those permanently laid-off USW Employees under the terms of a new 

Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA',,). Pursuant to the USW's Settlement Agreement 

with EVT AC, the old CBA ended as of December 1, 2003. 

In January 2004, EVT AC requested the bankruptcy court's approval of the 

Settlement Agreement between EVT AC and USW, which resolved all the outstanding 

issues between them. The Settlement Agreement provided in part as follows: 

The Company and USWA will execute the necessary documents to effectuate the dismissal 

of the complaint filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") to terminate 

the defined benefit pension plan sponsored by Thunderbird Mining Company in order to 

allow participants to be in "pay status" by January 31, 2004. It is understood that this 

includes the consent to the date of plan termination proposed by PBGC. 

On August 19, 2004, Judge Michael J. Davis of the United States District Court for 

the District of Minnesota granted PBGC's motion for summary judgment and ordered that 

the Plan was terminated, that PBGC was appointed the Plan's trustee, and that July 24, 

2003 was established as the Plan's termination date. 

PBGe's Determination Letters and Your Appeal 

PBGC's determination letters, issued between December 21, 2006 and May 15, 

2007, did not specifically state that your clients failed to meet the eligibility requirements for 

a shutdown benefit under the Plan. However, because the determination letters did not 

say that your clients met those eligibility requirements while determining that they were 

eligible for other, non-shutdown benefits, we have decided that you correctly inferred that 

PBGC determined your clients did not meet the eligibility requirements for a shutdown 
- 5 -

benefit before the Plan terminated. As a result, we have decided to accept your appeal on 

behalf of all of your clients with respect to their eligibility for Plan shutdown benefits insofar 

as that eligibility depends upon whether the temporary shutdown of EVJAC's facilities 

became permanent before the Plan terminated. 

Your May 31, 2007 appeal brief claimed that: 

The refusal of EVT AC and PBGC to consider the cessation of operations at the plant on 

May 15, 2003 as q 'permanent shutdown' does not control the finding as to whether a 

permanent shutdown had occurred prior to the date of plan termination, pnd,consequently, 

whether PBGC is obligated to pay shutdown benefits: 

In accordance with the relevant case law, an objective review of the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the closure demonstrates that EVT AC permanently shutdown 

the facility prior to the July 24, 2003 date of plan termination. 

Your brief claimed that "USW has been unable to find relevant PBGC case law 

addressing the circumstances in which it may be found that a permanent shutdown has 

occurred for purposes of a retirement b~nefit such as that provided under the Company's 

plan." Instead, your brief offered several examples in which arbitrators determined thatthe 

"label" a company assigns to a plant closure is secondary to the facts surrounding the· 

closure. As a preliminary matter, we note that these arbitral dec,sions did not involve 

. PBGCand, in any event, are not binding on PBGC's Appeals Board. That being said, 

pursuant to Section 4003.59 of PBGC's regulations, we have considered all ofthe material 

you submitted in connection with this appeal, including the arbitral decisions cited in your 

brief. You said that, in.Wean United, 24 Steel Arb. 18063 (Teple, Arb. 1984), Arbitrator 

Teple cited four specific reasons why a plant had not shutdown: a) the company kept the 

plan in standby condition; b) the remaining equipment was properly maintained; c) the· 

phone lines were intact; and d) new orders were in process. 

In support of your permanent plant shutdown argument, you asserted the following: 

a. Management's written slatements indicate its intent to permanently close the plant 

if additional orders were not received, and, in fact, no additional orders were 

received from May 15 through July 24 .... 

b. EVTAC failed to secure new sales contracts and/or sell the Company, and EVT AC 

further failed to demonstrate any concrete plans to reorganize the company .... 

c. Management failed to place the plant on "standby" and failed to maintain the 

eqUipment, thereby foreclosing any reasonable likelihood of resuming operations .. 

d. Prior to terminating the Plan on July 24, 2003, PBGC repeatedly acknowledged 

. that EVT AC was not viable and that there was no reasonable expectation that the 

facility would resume operations .... 

[Boldface suppressed.] 
·11 

-6-

. , 

Law, Regulations and Policy 

PBGC records indicate that, when the Plan terminated on July 24, 2003, it did not 

have sufficient assets to satisfy the benefits guaranteed by PBGe under Title IV of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as am~nded ("ERISA"). 

Entitlement to a guaranteed 'benefit is determined by the provisions of the Plan's 

, governing document that were in effect when the Plan terminated, and by ERISA and 

PBGC's regulations. ERISA § 4022(a) provides tha,t, subject to certain limitations, PBGC 

shall guarantee the payment of all nonforfeitable benefits under a. covered pension plan 

that terminates. ERISA defines a "nonforfeitable" benefit as It. ;". a benefit for which a 

participant has satisfied the conditions for entitlement under the plan br the requirements of 

[ERISA]." See ERISA § 4401 (a)(8), 29 U.S.C. §1301 (a)(8); 29 C.F.R. §.4001.2 (definition 

of nonforfeitable benefit). PBGC regulations provide that a guaranteed benefit must be 

nonforfeitable on or before the plan's termination date. See 29 C.F.R. § 4022.3. 

The issue in this appeal is whether your clients qualified for Rule-of-65 or 70/80 

retirement benefits based on their "Continuous Service" bejng broken due to a "permanent 

shutdown of a plant, department, or a subdivision thereof.", Conditions such as these, 

which involve how the employment relationship is terminated, are substantive requirements 

established under Plan terms that must be satisfied by the termination date. See Fetty v. 

paGC, 915 F. Supp. 230 (D. Colo. 1996), aff'd, 104 F.3d 367 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 

522 U.S. 812 (1997) (subsidized early retirenient benefits based upon plant shutdown are 

not guaranteed if the shutdown occurs after the date of plan termination); see also paGC 

v. Republic Technologies Int'l, 386 F.3d 659 (6th Cir. 2004) (court affirms PBGC's selection 

of a pre-shutdown termination date that avoided vesting of shutdown benefits). In plans 

that do not specifically define "permanent shutdown," PBGC must determine whether a 

permanent shutdown has occurred before a plan's termination date based on the facts and 

circumstances. Dycus et a/. V. paGe, 133 F .3d 1367 (10th Cir. 1998) (court affirms 

PBGC's determination that there was no permanent shutdown where the company sold its 

assets to a new owner). 

A PBGC policy, "Payment of Benefits to Working Retirees," provides guidelines for 

PBGC's payment of shutdown benefits.Underthis policy, PBGC "will scrutinize shutdown 

benefits and make case-by-case determinations of whether facility shutdowns have 

occurred." The policy defines a "shutdown benefit" as "a subsidized early retirement 

benefit that becomes payable when all or substantially all of an employer's operations at a 

facility cease, resulting in a loss of jobs that is expected to be permanent for all or 

substantially all of the employees at that facility who are partiCipants in the plan." Finally, 

PBGC's policy states that: "The sale of an employer's assets does not automatically 

constitute a shutdown. A PBGC determination that a shutdown has not occurred does not 

affect partiCipants' entitlements to other, non-shutdown benefits under the plan." 
-7..; 

Relevant Plan Provisions 

Section 2.6 of the Pension Agreement defines "70/80 Retirement." Section 2.7 of 

the Pension Agreement defines "Rule-of-55 Retirement." 70/80 Retirement benefits and 

Rule-of-65 Retirement benefits are payable to certain participants only if their "continuous 

service is broken by reason of a permanent shutdown of a plant, department or subdivision 

thereof." 

Section 5.1 (b) of the Pension Agreement defines when a participant's continuous 

service is broken as follows: 

(b) Continuous service shall be broken by: 

\ 

(1) quit; 

(2) discharge, provided that if the Employee i~ rehired within six month the 

break in continuous service shall be removed; 

(3) termination (if and when termination occurs pursuant to the Basic 

Agreement) due to permanent shutdown of a mine, department or 

subdivision thereof; . 

(4) absence which continues for more than two years, except that 0) absence 

in excess of two years due to compensable disability incurred during 

course of employment shall not break continuous service, ... ; and (ii) if an 

Employee absent on account of layoff or disability in excess of two years 

returns to work with the Company within the period during which he retains 

his accumulated continuous service in accordance with the seniority 

provisions of the Basic Agreement, the break in continuous service shall 

be removed; 

The Pension Agreement contains no definition of "permanent shutdown". 

Discussion 

In cases like this one, where the Plan provides benefits contingent on a "permanent 

shutdown" and the Plan does not define the term "permanent shutdown," PBGC must 

determine whether a permanent shutdown occurred based on all the facts and 

circumstances. 

1. You argued that no additional orders were received from May 15, 2003 through 

July 24, 2003 and that management's written statements indicate its intent to 

permanently close the plant if no additional orders were received. 

The Appeals Board notes that T -Bird's WARN Act notice to the participants clearly 

stated that the closing of the plant was to be temporary if anticipated orders were received 

during the shutdown period. In addition, the WARN Act notice did not specify how long the 

"shutdown period" would last. The fact that T-Bird did not specify an anticipated end date 

for the "shutdown period" suggests that T-Bird was not certain as to when it might receive 
- 8 -

the necessary pellet orders. Furthermore, the indefinite duration·of the shutdown period 

suggests that T-Bird did not want to limit its options by specifying. an end date that was too earl~' , ' 

The Declaration of that you submittep with your appeal states that 

on or about July 5,2003, Congressman Oberstar recommended to PresidentHilshorst that 

he negotiate with Laiwu "to either secure sales contracts with Laiwu or alternately sell all 

, company assets to Laiwu." While the record suggests that President Hilshorst was already 

familiar with Laiwu at that time, the record shows, that President Hilshorst and others 

continued to pursue sales contracts or an asset sale arrangement with Laiwu for quite 

some time after July 24, 2003 and that Congressman Oberstar continued to help well after 

. July 24, 2003. Based upon the above facts and sequence of events, the Appeals Board 

concluded that thle Declaration of. provides sUbstantial support for PBGC's 

conclusion that the shutdown period did not end before July 24, 2003. 

2. You argued that EVTAC failed to secure new sales contracts and/or sell the 

company, and EVTAC further failed to demonstrate any.concrete plans to 

reorganize the company. 

Contrary to this second claim' above, 'the record .indicates that on or before 

October 8,2003, representatives of Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and the Chinese state-owned 

Laiwu Steel Group, Ltd., made a joint offer to purchase EVTAC's assets. According to an 

Associated Press wire report of the offer, Congressman Oberstar "helped broker the deal 

because of his relationship with Yang Jiechi, the Chinese ambassador to the United 

States." 

Later, the purchase of EVTAC's assets by Cleveland-Cliffs and Laiwu was approved 

by the bankruptcy court. As a result, the T -Bird plant in Eveleth was reopened under the. 

name of United Taconite, and the great majority of former T-Bird workers were reemployed in presumably similar positions with the new company. 

We assume that this second claim was meant to say that the described events did 

not happen before July 24, 2003. As we noted above, however, we have found that the 

record contains ample evidence that the "shutdown period" described in the WARN Act 

notice was not intended to end and did not end until after the Plan terminated. 

3. You argued that management failed to place the plant on "standby" and failed to 

maintain the equipment, thereby foreclosing any reasonable likelihood of resuming 

operations. 

While you allege that T-Bird failed to place the plant on "standby", the Appeals 

, Board does not agree that such a failure would foreclose any reasonable likelihood of 

resuming operations. The record shows that EVT AC, in fact, took the necessary steps to 

make the plant ready for production before the sale of the plant to United Taconite could 

be completed. The facts, in this case, speak for themselves. The plant did, in fact, resume 
- 9 -

operations under new management in December 2003, approximately 6%, months after the 

start of the temporary shutdown period. I 

While the Appeals Board agrees that T-Bird's actions in this regard suggest that 

T-Bird's management did not anticipate reopening the plant within a matter of weeks after 

the temporary closure began, the Appeals Board has found that these actions did not 

foreclose the likelihood of resuming operations. 

4. You argued that prior to terminating the Plan on July 24, 2003, PBGC repeatedly 

acknowledged that EVTAC was not viable and that there was no reasonable 

expectation that the facility would resume operations. 

Under this claim, your appeal brief cited three documents found in PBGG's 

trusteeship decision record, namely, (1) the Business Viability Evaluation by Metal 

Strategies dated July 14, 2003, (2) the Trusteeship Working Group ("TWG") Memorandum 

dated July 15, 2003, and (3) the TWG Minutes dated July 16, 2003,. 

The function of the TWG is to determine when it is necessary or appropriate for 

PBGC either to accept a proposed plan termination by a plan administrator or to ihitiate 

termination proceedings itself. The TWG makes termination decisions based on 

recommendations by PBGC's Department of Insurance Supervision and Compliance 

("DISC"). At the time of the Plan's termination in July 2003, however, termination 

recommendations were made by the Corporate Finance and Negotiations Department 

("CFND"), DISC's predecessor. 

As you noted in your appeal brief, CFND stated in its July 15, 2003 TWG 

Memorandum that: "Although the Company states that it is working toward, a plan of 

reorganization, neither CFND nor its independent consultant believes the company can 

survive with the Plan ongoing." What you failed to mention in your appeal brief were the 

estimates ofthe Plan's underfunding, the anticipated minimum funding requirements, and 

the estimates of the additional underfunding that would result from a permanent shutdown 

upon which CFND's recommendations were based. 

In the same July 15, 2003 TWG Memorandum, CFND presented its estimates that: 

(1) the Plan then had Unfunded Benefit Liabilities of $61.2M; (2) the Plan's Unfunded 

Benefit Liabilities would increase to $129M if the temporary shutdown became permanent; 

and (3) the Plan's projected minimum funding contribution for 2004 would be $11.9M. It 

was this great increase in the Pian's underfunding, if the Plan did not terminate before the 

temporary shutdown could become permanent, that led CFND to recommend that the Plan 

be terminated pursuant to ERISA § 4042(a)(4) because the possible long-run loss to the 

PBGC was reasonably expected to increase unreasonably unless the Plan was terminated. 

The Minutes of July 16, 2003 TWG Meeting show that the TWG considered the 

possibility that the plant had already incurred a permanent shutdown. The Minutes 

specifically stated as follows: 
-10-

The TWG asked whether the current cessation of business activities constituted a 

shutdown that had ,already triggered shutdown benefits. CFND reported that the, 

Company's position is that this is only a temporary cessation of activiti!3s. For example, the 

WARN notice describes the cessation as temporary; although 300 employees have applied 

for shutdown benefits, the Company has not paid them; and in other communications 

between PBGC and the Company, the Company has been clear that a permanent 

shutdown has' not occurred~ 

As noted above, the TWG's function is to determine when a plan should be or must 

'be terminated, taking into consideration the interests ofthe plan's participants and PBGC's 

insurance fund. Given (1) the large amount of the Plan's under,funding, (2) the large 

projected minimum funding contribution amount, (3) the consultant's pessimistic economic 

projection for EVTAC, (4) EVT AC's position that the shutdown was temporary while it 

continued seeking pellet contracts, and (5) the great increase in liabilities if the temporary 

shutdown were to become permanent, the TWG a'ccepted CFND's recommendation to 

terminate the Plan pursuant to ERISA § 4042( c). This section of ERiSA permits the PBGC 

to terminate a plan in order to avoid an unreasonable increase in the liability of the PBGC 

,insurance fund and in order to protect the interests of the Plan's participants. 

Finally, we note that, it was not until December 1, 260~, the date on which EVTAC 

closed its sale of assets to United Taconite ("United"), that T-Bird "permanently" laid off all 

of its employees. It was on this same date that the oldCBA ended and the former T-Bird 

employees were rehired by United under a new CBA. , 

Given the fact that most T-Bird employees were rehired by United, and assuming 

that those employees are doing the same or similar jobs they were performing for T-Bird at 

the same location, it would be difficult for the Board to conclude that a permanent 

shutdown of the Eveleth taconite plant occurred at all. However, because your clients' 

eligibility for shutdown benefits depends on whether or not a permanent shutdown occurred, 

before the Plan terminated, we have concluded there is no need for us to decide whether a 

permanent shutdown occurred after the Plan terminated. 

Based on all of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appeals Board has 

concluded that the temporary shutdown of T -Bird ended with the sale of EVT AC's assets to 

United Taconite on December 1, 2003 and that a permanent shutdown of the plant did not 

occur, if at all, before the Plan terminated on July 24, 2003. 

In conclusion, because a permanent shutdown of the T-Bird facility did not occur 

before the Plan terminated on July 24, 2003, shutdown benefits are not payable under the 

Rule-of-65 and 70/80 retirement provisions of the Plan. 

Decision 

Having applied the law, Plan provisions, and PBGC rules to the facts of this case, 

the Appeals Board concluded that PBGC is unable to guarantee shutdown benefits for your 

clients because T-Bird was not permanently shut down before the Plan terminated on 

July 24, 2003. This decision is PBGC's final action regarding the issues your appeal 
- 11 -

raised. If they wish, your clients may seek court review of this decision in an appropriate 

federal district court. 

If your clients need other information regarding their PBGC benefits, they may call 

PBGC's Customer Contact Center at 1-800-400-7242 and ask to speak to the Authorized 

Representative assigned to the Plan (Case 199929). 

Sincerely, 

Michel Louis 

Appeals Board Member 

Enclosure