[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 775-780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31658]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,673]


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

    On May 31, 2012, the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) ordered the United States Department of Labor (Department) to 
conduct further investigation in Former Employees of Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 10-
00299).
    The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under 
Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Act), 19 
U.S.C. 2272(a), can be satisfied if the following criteria are met:

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are 
threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
    (2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have 
decreased absolutely;
    (ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or directly 
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm 
have increased;
    (II) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles--
    (aa) Into which one or more component parts produced by such 
firm are directly incorporated, or
    (bb) Which are produced directly using services supplied by such 
firm, have increased; or
    (III) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more 
component parts produced outside the United States that are like or 
directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or 
more component parts produced by such firm have increased; and
    (iii) The increase in imports described in clause (ii) 
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of 
separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such 
firm; or
    (B)(i)(I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a 
foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of 
services like or directly competitive with articles which are 
produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
    (II) Such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country 
articles or services that are like or directly competitive with 
articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such 
firm; and
    (ii) The shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of 
articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed 
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.

[[Page 776]]

Background

    The initial investigation began on October 23, 2009 when three 
workers filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on 
behalf of workers and former workers of the Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin (subject 
facility). Workers at the subject facility (subject worker group) 
supply administrative support services related to the production of 
doors and windows at various domestic locations of Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc. (hereafter referred to as ``subject firm'' or 
``Weather Shield'').
    29 CFR 90.2 states that ``Increased imports means that imports have 
increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared 
to a representative base period. The representative base period shall 
be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the 
date which is the twelve month prior to the date of the petition.'' As 
such, the relevant time period for this investigation is October 2008 
through September 2009, and the representative base period is October 
2007 through September 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``relevant time 
period'' or ``period under investigation'').
    The initial investigation revealed that neither the subject firm 
nor its customers increased import purchases of either doors or windows 
(or like or directly competitive articles) during the relevant time 
period. Additionally, the subject firm had not shifted abroad either 
the production of these articles or services like or directly 
competitive with those supplied by the worker group in the period under 
investigation. As such, the group eligibility requirements were not 
satisfied, and the Department issued a negative determination on July 
16, 2010. The Department's Notice of Negative Determination was 
published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45163). 
Updated Administrative Record (UAR) 611. The Department filed the UAR 
with the USCIT on October 31, 2011.
    By application dated August 23, 2010, one of the petitioners 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination. In the application, the petitioner stated that the 
worker group covered by petition TA-W-72,673 was impacted by the same 
import competition as the worker group covered by TAA certification TA-
W-64,725, which was issued on August 9, 2010 (Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin; petition 
dated December 17, 2008) and argued that the same conclusion awarding 
worker adjustment assistance should be applied in the case at hand. 
However, because it was determined that a different relevant time 
period was at issue which resulted in a different conclusion, the 
Department determined that the determination in TA-W-64,725 was not 
controlling.
    Because the Department determined that administrative 
reconsideration could not be granted, a Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was issued on 
September 10, 2010, in accordance with 29 CFR 90.18(c). The 
Department's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 
2010 (75 FR 57519). UAR 653.
    Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint with the USCIT on 
October 8, 2010, and argued the same allegations as in their request 
for administrative reconsideration. The Department determined that 
further investigation under judicial review was unjustified and filed 
an administrative record of the materials upon which the Department 
relied in making its determination with regards to the subject worker 
group's eligibility to apply for TAA.
    In Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record, 
dated March 30, 2011, Plaintiffs indicated that the administrative 
record did not include documentation that adequately supported the 
negative determination and submitted additional information to be 
considered by the Department to show that Weather Shield faced import 
competition.

First Remand Activity

    On May 2, 2011, the Department filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand 
in which it sought to supplement the administrative record with 
documentation that was used in the decision making process for case TA-
W-64,725 and explain the relevance of this material. At that time, the 
Department did not seek to conduct further investigation. Rather, the 
Department amended the administrative record on June 3, 2011 to include 
documents from case TA-W-64,725 and supplemented the record with an 
explanation regarding the relevance of these documents.
    The Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 
Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record 
on July 5, 2011 in which they asked the Department to conduct further 
investigation and apply the same methodology for administering customer 
surveys and determining import competition as in the TA-W-64,725 remand 
investigation. Specifically, the Plaintiffs stated that the Department 
should collect additional information from the subject firm's customers 
and competitors.

Second Remand Activity

    On August 3, 2011, the Department requested a second voluntary 
remand to conduct further investigation, to permit the Plaintiffs to 
submit additional evidence, and to supplement the administrative record 
with all the contents of the TA-W-64,725 case record. During the second 
remand investigation, the Department collected additional information 
from the subject firm, conducted an expanded customer survey, collected 
aggregate U.S. import data, and sought input from the Plaintiffs.
    The Department found that imports of Weather Shield's customers had 
declined during the relevant time period. The updated data also 
revealed that, contrary to information that had been provided 
previously, the subject firm's total sales for the relevant time period 
increased. As such, the Department determined that worker separations 
were not related to trade impact and reaffirmed the negative 
determination regarding TAA eligibility. On October 11, 2011 the 
Department issued a Negative Determination on Remand. The Department's 
Notice of Negative Determination was published in the Federal Register 
on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70761). Supplemental Updated Administrative 
Record (SUAR) 501-505.

Third Remand Activity

    On December 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and 
Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for 
Judgment on the Agency Record. The Plaintiffs contended that the 
Department had not fully investigated the change in sales reported by 
Weather Shield; had not fully investigated if Weather Shield lost 
business to competitor Simpson Door Company, whose workers were 
eligible to apply for TAA under TA-W-65,585; and that the Department 
did not contact the domestic suppliers of a major customer of the 
subject firm to determine whether the suppliers sold imported articles 
to the customer, which could have created import competition for the 
subject firm.
    On February 3, 2012, the Department filed Defendant's Response in 
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Judgment on the 
Agency Record. In the response, the

[[Page 777]]

Department explained the basis of the negative determination. In 
particular, the Department reiterated that during the relevant time 
period, customer imports and U.S. aggregate imports declined, both in 
absolute and relative terms, and again emphasized that the sales of the 
subject firm increased during the relevant time period.
    On February 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief in Support of 
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record in 
which they stated that the Department failed to investigate conflicting 
information provided by Weather Shield during the initial and first 
remand investigations of this petition regarding its overall sales of 
doors and windows in the relevant time period; pointed to possible 
import competition by alleged Weather Shield competitor, Simpson Door 
Company; stated that the Department failed to investigate if imports by 
Simpson could have impacted operations at the subject firm; and alleged 
that the Department did not investigate sufficiently whether a major 
customer of the subject firm had purchased imported doors and/or 
windows indirectly through its other domestic suppliers during the 
relevant time period.
    On May 31, 2012, the USCIT filed a Memorandum and Order that stated 
that the Department's decision cannot be sustained as it does not 
explain the change in Weather Shield's reported sales information 
supplied by the subject firm. Additionally, the Memorandum stated that 
the investigation did not adequately address whether the customer 
purchased imported product from its other suppliers. The USCIT remanded 
the case to the Department to ``review and reconsider its explanation 
for the differences in Weather Shield's sales for 2008; as well as its 
conclusions related to import volumes.''

Activity Related to Weather Shield's 2008 Sales Data

    Pursuant to the May 31, 2012 Order, the Department again solicited 
information from Weather Shield regarding its sales for 2008 and 2009. 
In order to ensure the accuracy of the information collected from the 
subject firm throughout this investigation on which this determination 
is based, the Department requested and received an Affirmation of 
Information, signed under penalty of law, by the official 
representative of the subject firm. SUAR 170-173, 174-178.
    Because the two sets of sales data provided by the subject firm 
during the earlier investigations were not identical, the Department 
requested that the subject firm provide an explanation regarding the 
discrepancy between the two sets of data along with the correct sales 
information. SUAR 2-26, 27-31. In order to determine if sales or 
production declined during the relevant time period, the Department 
also solicited information regarding Weather Shield's production data 
during the same time period. SUAR 35-39. The findings confirmed that, 
in terms of value, Weather Shield sales increased from 2008 to 2009. 
SUAR 32, 81.
    In order for the Department to obtain from the subject firm 
production information regarding its total 2008 and 2009 doors and 
window units and to resolve any inconsistencies, on July 6, 2012, the 
Department filed its first motion for an enlargement of time. The time 
extension was also requested at this time to allow for the collection 
and analysis of the customer's supplier responses. On July 9, 2012, the 
USCIT granted the Department's request for a time enlargement that 
extended the deadline for filing the results to August 15, 2012.
    On July 19, 2012, the subject firm reported that production of 
doors and windows at the manufacturing locations which received the 
administrative support services of the subject worker group declined 
from 2008 to 2009. SUAR 40-45. The Department asked the subject firm to 
provide an explanation regarding the reason that a sales increase 
occurred while production declined. SUAR 40-45, 46-65, 66-71, 72-77, 
78-80.
    On August 6, 2012, the Department served Weather Shield with a 
subpoena to explain why the subject firm reported an increase in the 
value of sales of windows and doors for the same period (calendar year 
2008 to calendar year 2009) that it reported a decrease in the 
production of these articles. SUAR 72-77.
    Although Weather Shield reported that the sales information which 
was provided during the second remand was correct, SUAR 81, the 
Department sought further explanation of the seemingly inverse 
relationship between sales and production. The subject firm affirmed 
that total sales of doors and windows for 2008 and 2009 had increased. 
SUAR 32, 81. The subject firm also stated that the production numbers 
submitted earlier were provided in error and that they had submitted 
updated and accurate information. SUAR 81.
    On August 14, 2012, the Department filed a motion for a second 
enlargement of time of 60 days to continue the remand investigation. 
The Plaintiffs consented to the motion filed for the time enlargement 
provided that they receive any new relevant information provided by 
Weather Shield and to be given opportunity to comment.
    In accordance with the August 22, 2012 Order, the Department 
submitted to the Plaintiffs information that consisted of email 
correspondence between the Department and the subject firm that took 
place between June 14, 2012 and August 8, 2012 and the subpoena served 
on August 6, 2012. SUAR 295-378.
    On September 17, 2012, Plaintiffs provided comments on the released 
information, along with new import information. SUAR 382-386. The 
Plaintiffs stated that the information was insufficient for the 
following reasons: the record did not establish that all manufacturing 
locations and products manufactured by the subject firm were included 
in the sales and production figures; the Department had not 
demonstrated that the subject firm understood the questions posed and 
the type of information that had been requested, which had caused 
responses to be insufficient or incorrect; and that the subject firm 
had not provided accurate data regarding its imports of finished goods. 
SUAR 382-386.
    The Plaintiffs also argued that it is unclear from the record how 
many of the subject firm's production facilities are covered under this 
investigation. SUAR 382-386. Specifically, the Plaintiffs point out 
that, during the second remand investigation, the Department found 
that, although the subject firm pointed to five production locations 
that were supported by the corporate headquarters during the initial 
investigation, the Department later received information that the 
corporate headquarters supported ten production facilities. UAR 17-22, 
779-782. SUAR 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
    The Plaintiffs' comments regarding the five locations were derived 
from information that was submitted by the subject firm during the 
initial investigation of TA-W-64,735. UAR 17-22. That information was 
updated after the conclusion of the investigation of TA-W-64,735, and, 
during the second remand investigation of TA-W-72,673, the subject firm 
submitted a list of the ten production facilities that were supported 
by the subject worker group and fall within the scope of this 
investigation. UAR 779-782. SUAR 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
    As attested by the subject firm official and reflected in the 
record, the third remand investigation covered the locations supported 
by the subject worker group and all the products manufactured at those 
locations; the

[[Page 778]]

subject firm showed that it was fully aware of which locations and 
products it was providing information; and that the subject firm 
confirmed that it did not import doors or windows (or like or directly 
competitive articles) during the period under investigation. UAR 779-
782, 787, 789, 793-794, 796, 800, 820-821. SUAR 2-26, 27-31, 32-34, 35-
39, 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
    The Plaintiffs asked the Department to obtain from the subject firm 
evidence that the information submitted to the Department during this 
investigation was accurate and complete. SUAR 382-386. In particular, 
the Plaintiffs suggested that hard copies or electronic screen shots of 
accounting records would be beneficial in supporting the findings. SUAR 
382-386.
    As noted earlier, the Department received from the subject firm's 
representative a signed Attestation. Therefore, the Department's 
reliance upon information supplied by the subject firm during the third 
remand investigation is reasonable. Nonetheless, the Department 
reviewed the record and determined that any inconsistencies that 
Plaintiffs raised were already resolved based on the record through the 
investigation by the Department and, consequently, that a review of the 
subject firm's financial records are not necessary.
    Regarding the Plaintiff's claims of inaccuracy and inconsistency of 
the investigation, the Department identified information that is 
already part of the record to address the allegations and collected 
additional information from the subject firm. UAR 779-782, 787, 789, 
793-794, 796, 800, 820-821. SUAR 2-26, 27-31, 32-34, 35-39, 174-178, 
179-183, 184-186.
    To further support their argument regarding the inaccuracy of 
Weather Shield's import information, the Plaintiffs provided data from 
a trade publication. Specifically, the Plaintiffs submitted a bill of 
lading report from Zepol Corporation (www.zepol.com) that showed 
Weather Shield as an importer of doors and Windows. SUAR 386. Although 
the document did not list Weather Shield as the importer or consignee 
of foreign goods, it indicated that Weather Shield, specifically its 
Park Falls, Wisconsin facility, was the ultimate recipient of the 
imported products. SUAR 386.
    The Department contacted the subject firm to obtain further 
information to address Plaintiff comments regarding the bill of lading. 
SUAR 83-98. Specifically, the Department again solicited information to 
confirm that the subject firm did not import doors and/or windows, or 
like or directly competitive articles, during the relevant time period. 
SUAR 83-98. The Department also requested that the subject firm provide 
information on its domestic vendors and to address the information 
submitted by the Plaintiffs from zepol.com. SUAR 83-98, 100-101, 102-
104, 141, 142-143, 144-145, 146-147, 148-149.
    The subject firm responded that the importer and consignee listed 
on the bill of lading document is a domestic vendor that supplies the 
subject firm with articles that are neither like nor directly 
competitive with either windows or doors. SUAR 99, 105-140 150-152. The 
subject firm confirmed that it does not conduct business with any 
foreign firms, including the one listed on the bill of lading under the 
exporter column. SUAR 105-140, 150-152, 177-178.
    The Department asked the subject firm to provide more detailed 
information on the relationship between the subject firm and the vendor 
listed on the bill of lading document, as well as provide information 
on any relationships with any other foreign firms during the relevant 
time period. SUAR 83-98, 99, 100-101, 102-104, 142-143, 144-145, 150-
152. The subject firm stated that the vendor provided articles that are 
neither like nor directly competitive with either windows or doors, 
confirmed that Weather Shield does not purchase window or door units 
from vendors, and stated that the subject firm does not have 
information pertaining to the origin of the products purchased from 
vendors. SUAR 83-98, 99, 100-101, 102-104, 142-143, 144-145, 150-152. 
The subject firm explained that it does not purchase from vendors 
finished doors or windows and submitted a list of its top twenty 
vendors for 2008 and 2009. SUAR 105-140. The list included vendors that 
supplied services and articles other than doors and windows. SUAR 150-
152.
    In addition to the information collected from the subject firm 
regarding the new allegations, the Department conducted its own trade 
records search on zepol.com. SUAR 481-482, 485-488. The search did not 
expose any import information relating to the subject firm for the 
relevant time period. SUAR 481-482, 485-488.
    On October 2, 2012, the Department released more information to the 
Plaintiffs. The information included email correspondence between the 
Department and the subject firm that occurred between September 21, 
2012 and October 1, 2012. SUAR 389-464.
    On October 12, 2012, the Department filed a third motion for an 
enlargement of time. The motion stated that the Department required an 
extension to allow Plaintiffs to review and comment on the information 
provided by Weather Shield on October 2, 2012 (the second release of 
information to Plaintiffs), and, once comments are received, to analyze 
the comments, to collect further information as needed, and to file its 
remand findings. The USCIT granted the Department until December 17, 
2012 to file the Department's third remand results and the supplemental 
updated administrative record.
    On October 15, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted comments regarding the 
second information release. The comments provided by the Plaintiffs 
were erroneous on several counts. SUAR 467-469.
    First, the Plaintiffs misunderstood the time periods for which 
information was collected and stated that the subject firm provided 
information for its vendors for 2007 and 2008. SUAR 467-469. The record 
evidence covers periods 2008 and 2009, which is the period under 
investigation.
    Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed that Weather Shield provided 
information regarding only one of its vendors. SUAR 467-469. This is 
inaccurate because Weather Shield had provided information regarding 
its top twenty vendors and confirmed that it does not purchase from 
vendors finished door or window products. SUAR 105-140, 150-152. 
Further, the Plaintiffs misunderstood the Department's intent when it 
questioned the subject firm regarding one vendor in more detail because 
the name of this vendor was found on the trade publication submitted by 
the Plaintiffs. SUAR 83-98. According to the information received from 
the subject firm, the vendor provided articles that are neither like 
nor directly competitive with either windows or doors to Weather 
Shield. Therefore, any such imports could not have contributed to a 
decline in employment and sales or production at the subject firm. 
Imports of articles other than doors or windows (or like or directly 
competitive articles) fall outside the scope of this investigation.
    Additionally, the Plaintiffs stated that the Department should have 
solicited information from the subject firm regarding its imports of 
articles. SUAR 467-469. At the time the comments were submitted, 
Plaintiffs were informed that Weather Shield had confirmed that it did 
not import finished doors or windows (or like or directly competitive 
articles). This information was part of the October 2, 2011 information 
release. SUAR 389-464.

[[Page 779]]

Activity Related to Weather Shield's Customer and Its Suppliers

    During the initial investigation of this petition, the Department 
conducted a customer survey on the customers of the subject firm to 
determine if the layoffs at Weather Shield were the result of increased 
import competition. UAR 562-565, 566-572, 573-575, 576-578, 579-581, 
582, 679-738. A sample group of the subject firm's customers were 
surveyed regarding their purchases of doors and/or windows made in the 
relevant time period from the subject firm, other domestic firms, and 
foreign firms. The Department repeated a larger survey during the 
second remand that captured the majority of the subject firm's customer 
base during the period under investigation. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. 
Both surveys demonstrated that customer imports declined during the 
relevant time period.
    The results of the second remand investigation's customer survey 
showed that purchases made by the surveyed customers from the subject 
firm declined. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. Purchases made by these 
customers from other domestic and foreign firms also declined. UAR 
1243-1319, 1325-1344. Specifically, in the second survey conducted 
during the remand investigation, the Department captured 73 percent of 
the subject firm's customer base, in terms of value, in 2008 and 46 
percent in 2009. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. During the surveyed period, 
customer imports declined 20 percent. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. The 
survey conducted on Weather Shield's customers also showed that total 
customer imports declined 63 percent from 2008 to 2009. UAR 1325-1344.
    At the time of this customer survey, the subject firm had submitted 
information to the Department that indicated a decline of total sales 
of doors and windows from 2008 to 2009. UAR 585, 673. However, it was 
revealed in the second remand that overall sales of the subject firm 
increased. UAR 815.
    In the customer survey that was conducted during the initial 
investigation of this petition, one (and the largest) of Weather 
Shield's customers (for confidentiality purposes, this customer will 
hereafter be referred to as ``the customer'') was unable to provide a 
response to question 2 on the Business Confidential Customer 
Survey (OMB 1205-0342, Exp. 1/31/2013) which asks if the 
products purchased from other domestic firms were manufactured in a 
foreign country. UAR 562-565, 566-572.
    The information that this significant customer provided on the 
survey showed that its purchases from the subject firm declined from 
2008 to 2009. The customer's purchases from other domestic and foreign 
firms also declined during the same period. UAR 562-565, 566-572.
    To determine whether the subject firm may have competed with 
imported doors and/or windows of the other domestic suppliers of the 
customer, the Department followed up with the customer during the 
second remand to solicit information regarding the origin of the 
articles it purchases from other domestic firms. The customer again 
responded that it does not track import information on articles 
purchased from domestic suppliers and submitted a list of its suppliers 
for the relevant time period. UAR 823.
    The customer was contacted again during this third remand 
investigation to confirm the information that it submitted during the 
initial and remand investigations of this petition. SUAR 188-239. The 
customer also submitted additional information regarding the size 
(purchase value) of its 2008 and 2009 domestic door and/or window 
suppliers along with more specific information about the products 
purchased from each supplier. SUAR 188-239.
    Although the Department believes that its previous determination 
based on the findings of the customer survey was correct, the 
Department contacted each of the customer's suppliers to question 
whether they sold imported product to this customer in the period under 
investigation. SUAR 240-293.
    In order to determine whether any imported product sold to the 
customer by its other domestic suppliers contributed importantly to a 
decline in operations at Weather Shield, the Department first had to 
determine the size of each supplier in relation to the customer's 
operations, and then examine any import impact on the operations of the 
subject firm.
    The Department had to determine if the customer decreased its 
purchases from the subject firm and increased purchases from suppliers 
that imported the doors and/or windows they sold to the customer in the 
relevant time period. The customer provided information regarding the 
size, in purchase value, of its suppliers which was used to determine 
the significance of each supplier relative to the customer's operations 
and whether any of their imports could have impacted operations at 
Weather Shield. SUAR 187-239. The Department contacted all of the 
domestic suppliers of doors and windows of the customer to obtain 
information regarding the origin of the products sold to the customer 
in the years 2008 and 2009. SUAR 241-293. Each supplier was requested 
to specify how much, if any, of the doors and/or windows sold to the 
customer in the relevant time period was manufactured in a foreign 
country. SUAR 241-293.
    A portion of the suppliers-approximately 24 percent of the 
customer's door and window supplier base in 2008 and 22 percent in 
2009--reported that the articles that they sold to the customer were 
manufactured in a foreign country. SUAR 241-293, 477, 480. However, 
because the suppliers imported a negligible percentage of the articles 
they sold to the customer, the customer purchased approximately one 
percent of imported products from its other domestic suppliers in 2008 
and approximately two percent in 2009. SUAR 241-293, 477, 480, 507-508.
    This new survey information was used to determine total import 
impact. To identify the relevance of the information collected from the 
suppliers of the customer during this remand investigation, the 
Department revised the survey analysis to show results to include the 
new import information. SUAR 507-508. Specifically, the results now 
include the missing response to question 2 on the customer 
survey form--imported purchases made from domestic firms. SUAR 507-508.
    The updated information that includes indirect imports (``direct 
imports'' refer to imports by the customers of Weather Shield and 
``indirect imports'' refer to imports by the other domestic suppliers 
of Weather Shield's customers) shows that total imports of the 
customer's of the subject firm declined from 2008 to 2009 and that 
indirect imports increased by one percent during the relevant time 
period. SUAR 507-508. The negligible increase in imports by the 
suppliers could not have contributed importantly to a decline in 
employment and sales or production at the subject firm.

Summary of Third Remand Investigation

    The third remand investigation revealed that the subject firm's 
sales and production increased October 2008 through September 2009, and 
that the information provided by the subject firm could be relied upon 
by the Department.
    Based on a careful review of previously submitted information and 
new information obtained during this remand investigation, the 
Department determines that increased imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm did not 
contribute importantly to subject

[[Page 780]]

worker group separations. Therefore, the Department determined that the 
petitioning workers have not met the eligibility criteria of Section 
222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

    After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of 
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance for workers and former workers of Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on this 13th day of December 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-31658 Filed 1-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P