Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, WI; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 51851-51852 [2010-20791]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2010–20789 Filed 8–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–64,725]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51851
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
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
51852
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Notices
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
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice (10–091)]
Notice of Intent To Grant Partially
Exclusive License
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Intent To Grant
Exclusive License.
AGENCY:
This notice is issued in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and
37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby
gives notice of its intent to grant a
partially exclusive license in the United
States to practice the inventions
described and claimed in U.S. Patent
Application No. 09/056,363 and U.S.
Patent No. 6,730,498 entitled
‘‘Production of Functional Proteins:
Balance of Shear Stress and Gravity’’ to
Regenetech, Inc., having its principal
place of business in Houston, Texas.
The fields of use may be limited to
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:25 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
production of biomolecules and growth
factors for use in topical applications for
cosmetics, topical treatment of burns,
scars, stretch marks, acne and joint pain.
The patent rights in this invention have
been assigned to the United States of
America as represented by the
Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The prospective partially exclusive
license will comply with the terms and
conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR
404.7.
DATES: The prospective partially
exclusive license may be granted unless
within fifteen (15) days from the date of
this published notice, NASA receives
written objections including evidence
and argument that establish that the
grant of the license would not be
consistent with the requirements of 35
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Competing applications completed and
received by NASA within fifteen (15)
days of the date of this published notice
will also be treated as objections to the
grant of the contemplated partially
exclusive license. Objections submitted
in response to this notice will not be
made available to the public for
inspection and, to the extent permitted
by law, will not be released under the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552.
Objections relating to the
prospective license may be submitted to
Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel,
NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Code
AL, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston,
Texas 77058. (281) 244–7148; Fax (281)
483–6939.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theodore U. Ro, Intellectual Property
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Code
AL, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston,
Texas 77058. (281) 244–7148; Fax (281)
483–6939. Information about other
NASA inventions available for licensing
can be found online at https://
technology.nasa.gov/.
ADDRESSES:
Dated: August 17, 2010.
Richard W. Sherman,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010–20822 Filed 8–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice (10–090)]
NASA International Space Station
Advisory Committee; Meeting
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92–463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
announces an open meeting of the
NASA International Space Station
Advisory Committee. The purpose of
the meeting is to assess NASA and
Roscosmos continuing plans to support
a six-person crew aboard the
International Space Station, including
transportation, crew rotation, training,
and micro meteoroid and orbital debris
shielding.
SUMMARY:
September 10, 2010, 11–12 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time.
DATES:
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Headquarters, 300
E Street, SW., Room 7H45, Washington,
DC 20546.
ADDRESSES:
Dr.
J. Donald Miller, Office of International
and Interagency Relations, (202) 358–
1527, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, DC 20546–
0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
It is
imperative that the meeting be held on
this date to accommodate the
scheduling priorities of the key
participants. This meeting will be open
to the public up to the seating capacity
of the room. Five seats will be reserved
for members of the press. Attendees will
be requested to sign a register and to
comply with NASA security
requirements, including the
presentation of a valid picture ID, before
receiving an access badge. Foreign
nationals attending this meeting will be
required to provide a copy of their
passport, visa, or green card in addition
to providing the following information
no less than ten working days prior to
the meeting: Full name; gender; date/
place of birth; citizenship; visa/green
card information (number, type,
expiration date); passport information
(number, country, expiration date);
employer/affiliation information (name
of institution, address, country, phone);
title/position of attendee. Send
identifying information to Dr. Miller via
e-mail at j.d.miller@nasa.gov or by
telephone at (202) 358–1527. To
expedite admittance, attendees with
U.S. citizenship can provide identifying
information 3 working days in advance
by contacting Dr. Miller via e-mail at
j.d.miller@nasa.gov or by telephone at
(202) 358–1527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51851-51852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
