Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, Building Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, IL; Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, Building Division, Trim and Components Production, Galesburg, IL; Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, Building Division, Secondaries Production, Galesburg, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 68097-68098 [05-22322]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices [FR Doc. 05–22330 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–56,536, TA–W–56,536A and TA–W– 56,536B] Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, Building Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, IL; Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, Building Division, Trim and Components Production, Galesburg, IL; Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, Building Division, Secondaries Production, Galesburg, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s motion for voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of Butler Manufacturing Company v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 05–00440, issued September 2, 2005). AR 181–182. On February 7, 2005, three workers filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers at Butler Manufacturing Company, Galesburg, Illinois (TA–W–56,536). The petitioners stated that the workers’ separations were due to the shift of the subject firm’s production of prefabricated buildings to India, Mexico, and China and Butler’s imports of that article from Mexico and China. AR 2. The Secretary of Labor may certify as eligible for TAA benefits only those workers who are employed in the subdivision that produces the article that is adversely affected by imports of ‘‘like or directly competitive’’ articles. Paden v. U.S. Department of Labor, 562 F.2d 470, 475 (7th Cir.1977); See Abbott v. Donovan, 596 F.Supp 475 (C.I.T. 1984). Therefore, during the investigation, the Department of Labor (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Department’’) requested information from Butler Manufacturing Company in order to determine what articles were produced at the subject firm during February 2004 through February 2005, the twelve month period prior to the petition date (February 7, 2005) which is the ‘‘relevant period’’ for investigation. The Department also requested sale, production, and import VerDate jul<14>2003 16:18 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 figures regarding those articles produced at the Galesburg, Illinois facility during (AR 25–39, 57–66, 68) and conducted a survey of the company’s major customer’s regarding their purchases of those articles during the relevant period. AR 53–56, 67. Based on information provided by the subject firm (AR 68), the Department partitioned the petition into three subparts (Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, Illinois, TA–W–56,536; Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Trim and Components Production, Galesburg, Illinois, TA–W– 56,536A; and Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Secondaries Production, Galesburg, Illinois, TA–W–56,536B)—hereafter referred to collectively as ‘‘the subject firm’’—to address those articles produced at Butler Manufacturing Company, Galesburg, Illinois facility during the relevant period: Panels, trim and components, and secondaries. On March 2, 2005, the Department issued a determination denying certification of the workers’ eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA. AR 72–75. The negative determination was based on the investigation’s findings that the subject firm did not shift its production of panels, trim and components, or secondaries to a foreign country and that there were no increased imports by the subject firm or its customers of panels, trim and components, or secondaries. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16847). AR 80. By application of April 1, 2005, the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s denial, alleging that the workers were not separately identifiable by product line and that the workers’ separations were due to a shift of production abroad and increased imports. AR 84–87. On April 1, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration. AR 92. On April 23, 2005, the Notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 21247). AR 125. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted the subject company (AR 100, 133–139) and the workers (AR 104–105) for additional information. Based on information received by the company officials (AR 100, 129, 133–139) and the workers (AR 106–124, 126–128, 130– 132), the Department determined on PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68097 reconsideration that the workers were ineligible to apply for TAA and ATAA. The Department determined that those workers were not separately identifiable by product line and, nevertheless, that the subject firm did not shift production of panels, trim and components, or secondaries abroad. Instead, the subject firm was shifting production of those articles to domestic, affiliated facilities. AR 140–143. The Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration on May 11, 2005. The Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30142). AR 179–180. By letter dated July 21, 2005 to the USCIT, petitioners requested judicial review. AR 154–155. On September 2, 2005, the USCIT granted the Department’s request for voluntary remand and directed the Department to further investigate the subject workers’ eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA. AR 181–182. During the remand investigation, the Department carefully reviewed previously submitted information, solicited information from the plaintiff and workers (AR 201), and contacted the subject firm to obtain new and additional information regarding the articles produced during the relevant period, the work done by the subject workers, and the shift of production from the subject firm. A careful review of previouslysubmitted information and newlyobtained information revealed that the Department’s finding in the determination on reconsideration that the workers are not separately identifiable by product line was in error (AR 141), and the initial negative determination (of TA–W–56,536) finding on this issue (AR 74) was correct. The information shows that the workers were dedicated to particular production lines, that workers’ movements between production lines were infrequent, and that such movement were determined by union guidelines and usually based on seniority. AR 41–49, 196–199. Because the workers’ assignments to product lines in the Buildings Division were constant and changes among workers on the production lines were not the norm but the exception, the Department determines that the workers were separately identifiable by product line. However, regardless of whether or not the workers were separately identifiable by product line, the evidence obtained from all parties during the investigations do not support the workers’ claim that there was a shift of production of prefabricated buildings or E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM pfrm13 PsN: 09NON1 68098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices their components abroad or increased imports of those articles during the relevant period. Information provided by the subject firm revealed that the only articles produced during the relevant period were panels, trim and components, and secondaries. AR 183, 194–195. As such, the Department focused its remand investigation on those articles produced at the subject firm during the relevant period. AR 195–201. According to the subject firm, all trim and component, secondaries, and panel production at the subject facility had ceased by April 2005 and had shifted to a newly built facility in Jackson, Tennessee. As anticipated by the subject firm (AR 41–42), the production shift began in February 2005 and finished in May 2005. AR 184, 195. Information provided by the subject firm revealed no imports of panels (AR 186), trim and components (AR 187), or secondaries (AR 188). The previously conducted customer survey covered the appropriate products and revealed no increased imports of any products produced by the subject firm. AR 53–56, 67. In response to the plaintiff’s assertion that production had shifted to Mexico, India and China, the company official agreed that a representative of the Mexico plant had visited the subject firm. However, the reason for that visit was related to securing replacement and updated equipment for truss purlin production in Mexico (an article not produced at the subject firm during the relevant period). AR 195. While some production of component parts of these articles did shift to Asia (China), that shift occurred in 2003, which is prior to the relevant period for this petition. Further, those components were not made during the relevant period at the subject firm. AR 184, 195. Because the remand investigation revealed no imports of articles like or directly competitive with panels, trim and components, secondaries produced by the workers of the subject firm by the subject firm or its customers during the relevant period and no shifts of production of those articles abroad during the relevant period, the statutory requirements of neither Section 222(a)(1) and (2)(a) nor Section 222(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the Trade Act or 1974, as amended, were met, and the Department cannot certify the subject workers as eligible to apply for TAA. Further, since the workers are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be found eligible to apply for ATAA under Section 246(a)(3)(B)(i) of that law. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:18 Nov 08, 2005 Jkt 208001 Conclusion As the result of the findings of the investigation on remand, I affirm the negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, Illinois (TA–W– 56,536); Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Trim and Components Production, Galesburg, Illinois (TA–W–56,536A); and Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Secondaries Production, Galesburg, Illinois (TA–W–56,536B). Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of November 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 05–22322 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–30–U DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the periods of October 2005. In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for directly-impacted (primary) worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) 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 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both 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. There has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm or subdivision to a foreign county of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers’ firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers’ firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected secondary group to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met. (1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; (2) The workers’ firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and (3) Either— (A) The workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers’ firm; or (B) A loss or business by the workers’ firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM pfrm13 PsN: 09NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68097-68098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,536, TA-W-56,536A and TA-W-56,536B]


Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, 
Building Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, IL; 
Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, 
Building Division, Trim and Components Production, Galesburg, IL; 
Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of Bluescope Steel, Ltd, 
Building Division, Secondaries Production, Galesburg, IL; Notice of 
Negative Determination on Remand

    The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the 
Department of Labor's motion for voluntary remand for further 
investigation in Former Employees of Butler Manufacturing Company v. 
United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 05-00440, issued September 
2, 2005). AR 181-182.
    On February 7, 2005, three workers filed a petition for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) on behalf of workers at Butler Manufacturing Company, Galesburg, 
Illinois (TA-W-56,536). The petitioners stated that the workers' 
separations were due to the shift of the subject firm's production of 
prefabricated buildings to India, Mexico, and China and Butler's 
imports of that article from Mexico and China. AR 2.
    The Secretary of Labor may certify as eligible for TAA benefits 
only those workers who are employed in the subdivision that produces 
the article that is adversely affected by imports of ``like or directly 
competitive'' articles. Paden v. U.S. Department of Labor, 562 F.2d 
470, 475 (7th Cir.1977); See Abbott v. Donovan, 596 F.Supp 475 (C.I.T. 
1984). Therefore, during the investigation, the Department of Labor 
(hereafter referred to as ``the Department'') requested information 
from Butler Manufacturing Company in order to determine what articles 
were produced at the subject firm during February 2004 through February 
2005, the twelve month period prior to the petition date (February 7, 
2005) which is the ``relevant period'' for investigation. The 
Department also requested sale, production, and import figures 
regarding those articles produced at the Galesburg, Illinois facility 
during (AR 25-39, 57-66, 68) and conducted a survey of the company's 
major customer's regarding their purchases of those articles during the 
relevant period. AR 53-56, 67.
    Based on information provided by the subject firm (AR 68), the 
Department partitioned the petition into three subparts (Butler 
Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings 
Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, Illinois, TA-W-
56,536; Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, 
LTD, Buildings Division, Trim and Components Production, Galesburg, 
Illinois, TA-W-56,536A; and Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of 
BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Secondaries Production, 
Galesburg, Illinois, TA-W-56,536B)--hereafter referred to collectively 
as ``the subject firm''--to address those articles produced at Butler 
Manufacturing Company, Galesburg, Illinois facility during the relevant 
period: Panels, trim and components, and secondaries.
    On March 2, 2005, the Department issued a determination denying 
certification of the workers' eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA. AR 
72-75. The negative determination was based on the investigation's 
findings that the subject firm did not shift its production of panels, 
trim and components, or secondaries to a foreign country and that there 
were no increased imports by the subject firm or its customers of 
panels, trim and components, or secondaries. The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2005 
(70 FR 16847). AR 80.
    By application of April 1, 2005, the petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's denial, alleging 
that the workers were not separately identifiable by product line and 
that the workers' separations were due to a shift of production abroad 
and increased imports. AR 84-87. On April 1, 2005, the Department 
issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration. AR 92. On April 23, 2005, the Notice was published in 
the Federal Register (70 FR 21247). AR 125.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted 
the subject company (AR 100, 133-139) and the workers (AR 104-105) for 
additional information. Based on information received by the company 
officials (AR 100, 129, 133-139) and the workers (AR 106-124, 126-128, 
130-132), the Department determined on reconsideration that the workers 
were ineligible to apply for TAA and ATAA. The Department determined 
that those workers were not separately identifiable by product line 
and, nevertheless, that the subject firm did not shift production of 
panels, trim and components, or secondaries abroad. Instead, the 
subject firm was shifting production of those articles to domestic, 
affiliated facilities. AR 140-143. The Department issued a Notice of 
Negative Determination on Reconsideration on May 11, 2005. The Notice 
of Negative Determination on Reconsideration was published in the 
Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30142). AR 179-180.
    By letter dated July 21, 2005 to the USCIT, petitioners requested 
judicial review. AR 154-155.
    On September 2, 2005, the USCIT granted the Department's request 
for voluntary remand and directed the Department to further investigate 
the subject workers' eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA. AR 181-182.
    During the remand investigation, the Department carefully reviewed 
previously submitted information, solicited information from the 
plaintiff and workers (AR 201), and contacted the subject firm to 
obtain new and additional information regarding the articles produced 
during the relevant period, the work done by the subject workers, and 
the shift of production from the subject firm.
    A careful review of previously-submitted information and newly-
obtained information revealed that the Department's finding in the 
determination on reconsideration that the workers are not separately 
identifiable by product line was in error (AR 141), and the initial 
negative determination (of TA-W-56,536) finding on this issue (AR 74) 
was correct. The information shows that the workers were dedicated to 
particular production lines, that workers' movements between production 
lines were infrequent, and that such movement were determined by union 
guidelines and usually based on seniority. AR 41-49, 196-199. Because 
the workers' assignments to product lines in the Buildings Division 
were constant and changes among workers on the production lines were 
not the norm but the exception, the Department determines that the 
workers were separately identifiable by product line. However, 
regardless of whether or not the workers were separately identifiable 
by product line, the evidence obtained from all parties during the 
investigations do not support the workers' claim that there was a shift 
of production of prefabricated buildings or

[[Page 68098]]

their components abroad or increased imports of those articles during 
the relevant period.
    Information provided by the subject firm revealed that the only 
articles produced during the relevant period were panels, trim and 
components, and secondaries. AR 183, 194-195. As such, the Department 
focused its remand investigation on those articles produced at the 
subject firm during the relevant period. AR 195-201.
    According to the subject firm, all trim and component, secondaries, 
and panel production at the subject facility had ceased by April 2005 
and had shifted to a newly built facility in Jackson, Tennessee. As 
anticipated by the subject firm (AR 41-42), the production shift began 
in February 2005 and finished in May 2005. AR 184, 195. Information 
provided by the subject firm revealed no imports of panels (AR 186), 
trim and components (AR 187), or secondaries (AR 188). The previously 
conducted customer survey covered the appropriate products and revealed 
no increased imports of any products produced by the subject firm. AR 
53-56, 67.
    In response to the plaintiff's assertion that production had 
shifted to Mexico, India and China, the company official agreed that a 
representative of the Mexico plant had visited the subject firm. 
However, the reason for that visit was related to securing replacement 
and updated equipment for truss purlin production in Mexico (an article 
not produced at the subject firm during the relevant period). AR 195. 
While some production of component parts of these articles did shift to 
Asia (China), that shift occurred in 2003, which is prior to the 
relevant period for this petition. Further, those components were not 
made during the relevant period at the subject firm. AR 184, 195.
    Because the remand investigation revealed no imports of articles 
like or directly competitive with panels, trim and components, 
secondaries produced by the workers of the subject firm by the subject 
firm or its customers during the relevant period and no shifts of 
production of those articles abroad during the relevant period, the 
statutory requirements of neither Section 222(a)(1) and (2)(a) nor 
Section 222(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the Trade Act or 1974, as amended, were 
met, and the Department cannot certify the subject workers as eligible 
to apply for TAA. Further, since the workers are not eligible to apply 
for TAA, the workers cannot be found eligible to apply for ATAA under 
Section 246(a)(3)(B)(i) of that law.

Conclusion

    As the result of the findings of the investigation on remand, I 
affirm the negative determination of eligibility to apply for 
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Butler 
Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings 
Division, Wall and Roof Panels Production, Galesburg, Illinois (TA-W-
56,536); Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary of BlueScope Steel, 
LTD, Buildings Division, Trim and Components Production, Galesburg, 
Illinois (TA-W-56,536A); and Butler Manufacturing Company, Subsidiary 
of BlueScope Steel, LTD, Buildings Division, Secondaries Production, 
Galesburg, Illinois (TA-W-56,536B).

    Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of November 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-22322 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-30-U