[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51851-51852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20791]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,725]


Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, 
WI; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand

    On February 9, 2010, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for further 
review, Former Employees of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. v. 
United States, Court No. 09-00377.
    On December 17, 2008, former workers of Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc. (subject firm) filed a petition for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) on behalf of workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., 
Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin (subject facility).
    The initial investigation revealed that, during the period under 
investigation, the workers at the subject facility (subject worker 
group) supported the production of doors and/or windows by providing 
administrative support functions to various subject firm manufacturing 
facilities and that there had been a significant number or proportion 
of workers at the subject facility that were totally or partially 
separated from employment. However, it was determined that imports of 
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the 
subject firm did not contribute importantly to worker separations at 
the subject facility and that the subject firm did not shift production 
to a foreign country. A survey of a sample of the subject firm's 
declining domestic customers revealed negligible imports of products 
like or directly competitive with those produced by workers at the 
subject firm.
    The Department issued a negative determination regarding the 
subject worker group's eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA on April 
29, 2009. The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the 
Federal Register on May 18, 2009 (74 FR 23214).
    By application dated May 26, 2009, the petitioning workers 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination. To support the claim that the subject worker group was 
import impacted, the petitioners provided additional information 
regarding the products manufactured at the subject firm and the worker 
separations occurring throughout all subject firm locations. The 
petitioners also provided information pertaining to a competitor of the 
subject firm whose workers had been certified eligible to apply for 
TAA.
    The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration on June 2, 2009. The 
Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 
2009 (74 FR 28956).
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department obtained 
additional information from the subject firm regarding the petitioners' 
claims. The Department also surveyed additional declining customers 
regarding their purchases of articles like or directly competitive with 
those produced at the subject firm. The reconsideration investigation 
did not reveal information sufficient to reverse the initial negative 
determination.
    Based on the findings of the reconsideration investigation, the 
Department concluded that customer imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with those produced by workers at the subject firm did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations. The Department issued a 
Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration on July 14, 2009. 
The Notice was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2009 (74 
FR 38048).
    The petitioners thereupon filed a complaint to the USCIT. In the 
complaint to the USCIT, dated January 19, 2010, the Plaintiffs alleged 
that workers at the subject facility were impacted by increased 
customer imports of articles like or directly competitive with those 
produced at the subject firm. The Plaintiffs also requested the 
Department to investigate all the subject firm locations and product 
lines manufactured at the production facilities.
    On January 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the 
administrative record before the USCIT. Plaintiffs' motion included 
additional evidence not considered in Labor's investigation of the 
subject workers' petition for TAA benefits, including, in particular, 
information pertaining to competitors of the subject firm whose workers 
had been certified eligible to apply for TAA and who had overlapping 
customers with the subject firm. Since a number of these customers had 
not been contacted in the original investigation, a further review of 
this information was deemed necessary.
    Based on the new information submitted, the Department requested 
that the USCIT remand the case to the Department to conduct a further 
investigation. On February 9, 2010, the USCIT granted this request.
    For a worker group to be certified for TAA based on increased 
imports, all of the following must be satisfied:

    A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have 
become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become 
totally or partially separated;
    B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision 
have decreased absolutely; and
    C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive 
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed 
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and 
to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision.

    During the remand investigation, the Department obtained 
information from the subject firm and solicited input from the 
Plaintiffs. The Department also conducted a more extensive sample 
customer survey to determine whether or not there were increased 
customer imports in the relevant period of articles like or directly 
competitive with doors and/or windows produced at the subject firm and, 
if so, whether the increased imports contributed importantly to worker 
group separations.
    The expanded sample customer survey conducted during the remand 
investigation revealed that the surveyed customer purchases from the 
subject firm declined while imports of doors and/or windows or articles 
like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm 
increased in the relevant period. The Department surveyed a significant 
proportion of the subject firm's declining customers regarding import 
purchases of doors and/or windows in 2007 and 2008, including 
overlapping customer with competitors identified by petitioners for the 
first time in their USCIT complaint. Overall, the customers increased 
import purchases in the period under investigation relative to 
purchases made from the subject firm.
    Based on the findings of the remand investigation, the Department 
determines that increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with doors and/or windows produced by the subject firm 
contributed importantly to the subject workers' separation and to the 
decline in subject firm sales and production.
    In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC 2813), 
as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its 
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to

[[Page 51852]]

apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the 
group eligibility requirements of Section 246 have been met.
    A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and 
possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions 
within the industry are adverse.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the information obtained during the remand 
investigation, I determine that increased imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with doors and/or windows produced by the subject 
firm contributed to the total separation of a significant number or 
proportion of workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the 
provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:

    All workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate 
Office, Medford, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after December 17, 2007, through two 
years from the issuance of this revised determination, are eligible 
to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of August 2010.
 Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-20791 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P