[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