Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. Corporate Office, Medford, WI; Notice of Amended Negative Determination, 35026-35030 [2011-14818]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35026-35030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,673


Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. Corporate Office, Medford, WI; 
Notice of Amended Negative Determination

    On May 3, 2011, the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand 
to complete the administrative record and to file a determination that 
provides a detailed explanation of its reliance upon the five types of 
documents inadvertently omitted from the previously filed 
administrative record in Former Employees of Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 10-
00299).
    On July 16, 2009, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a 
Negative Determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of 
Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, 
Wisconsin (subject facility) covered by TA-W-72,673. Amended 
Administrative Record (AAR) 64. 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. AAR 67. The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2009 
(75 FR 45163). AAR 77.
    The authority for these issuances is the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended by the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 
2009 (Division B, Title I, Subtitle I of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5), hereafter referred to as 
TGAAA.
    As explained in the determination, workers of a firm who filed a 
petition for TAA under TGAAA may be eligible for worker adjustment 
assistance, under the statutory criteria in effect at the time this 
petition was filed, if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) 
or (f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), (c), (f) (2009).
    For the Department to issue a certification for workers under 
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a) (2009), the following 
three criteria must be met:

I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 
19 U.S.C. 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant number or 
proportion of the workers in the workers' firm must have become 
totally or partially separated or be threatened with total or 
partial separation.
II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 
19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be met in one of two ways:
    (A) Increased Imports Path:
    (i) Sales or production, or both, at the workers' firm must have 
decreased absolutely, AND
    (ii) (I) Imports of articles or services like or directly 
competitive with articles or services produced or supplied by the 
workers' firm have increased, OR
    (II)(aa) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles into which the component part produced by the workers' firm 
was directly incorporated have increased; OR
    (II)(bb) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by 
the workers' firm have increased; OR
    (III) Imports of articles directly incorporating component parts 
not produced in the U.S. that are like or directly competitive with 
the article into

[[Page 35027]]

which the component part produced by the workers' firm was directly 
incorporated have increased.
    (B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
    (i)(I) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign 
country in the production of articles or supply of services like or 
directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' 
firm; OR
    (i)(II) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by 
the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly 
competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm.
III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or 
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the workers' 
separation or threat of separation. See Sections 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) 
and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 
2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

    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 months prior to the date of the petition.''
    Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(d) (2009), defines the 
terms ``Supplier'' and ``Downstream Producer.'' For the Department to 
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the Act, 
19 U.S.C. 2272(c) (2009), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream 
Producer, the following criteria must be met:

    (1) A 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 is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a 
firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification 
of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), 
and such supply or production is related to the article or service 
that was the basis for such certification; and
    (3) Either
    (A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it 
supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at 
least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
    (B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm 
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' 
separation or threat of separation.

    Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible to apply for TAA 
under TGAAA if they are publicly identified by name by the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) as a member of a domestic industry 
in an investigation resulting in a category of determination that is 
listed in Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(f)(2009).
    The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under 
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(f)(2009), can be satisfied if 
the following criteria are met:

    (1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the 
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in 
an investigation resulting in--
    (A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat 
thereof under section 202(b)(1);
    (B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat 
thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
    (C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or 
threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
    (2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on 
the date on which--
    (A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the 
International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect 
to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is 
published in the Federal Register under section 202(f)(3); or
    (B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in 
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal Register; and
    (3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from 
the workers' firm within--
    (A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
    (B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period 
preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).

Summary of Investigation of TA-W-72,673

    This petition, covering workers and former workers of Weather 
Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin, TA-W-
72,673 (hereafter referred to as ``WEATHER SHIELD II''), is dated 
October 23, 2009. AAR 3. Therefore, the period of investigation 
included the twelve month period prior to October 2009 (hereafter 
referred to as ``the relevant period''), which is October 2008 through 
September 2009, and the representative base period for the 
investigation, which is October 2007 through September 2008.
    The initial negative determination in Weather Shield II was based 
on the findings that Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. (subject firm) 
did not, during the period under investigation, shift to/acquire from a 
foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive 
with the administrative support services supplied by the subject worker 
group; that the subject worker group's separation, or threat of 
separation, was not related to any increase in imports of like or 
directly competitive services; that the subject worker group did not 
supply a service that was directly used in the production of an 
article, or the supply of service, by a firm that employed a worker 
group that is eligible to apply for TAA based on the aforementioned 
article or service; and that the subject firm was not identified by 
name in affirmative finding of injury by the ITC. AAR 67-68.
    During the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD II, the Department 
surveyed the subject firm's major declining customers regarding their 
purchases of doors and/or windows in the relevant period. AAR 29-48. 
The survey revealed that customer imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with those produced by the subject firm declined in the 
relevant period, both in absolute terms and relative to the purchases 
made from the subject firm. AAR 29-48, 53-56.
    By application dated August 23, 2009, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration on the Department's determination, 
stating that ``Case number TA-W-72,673 is the same company and division 
as petition TA-64,725--Weather Shield Employees [``WEATHER SHIELD 
I''].'' AAR 78, 86, 93, 101, 108.
    Because the petitioner did not supply facts not previously 
considered or provide additional documentation indicating that there 
was either: (1) A mistake in the determination of facts not previously 
considered, or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law 
justifying reconsideration of the initial determination, the Department 
issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration for the subject worker group on September 10, 2009. AAR 
115.
    The negative determination on reconsideration stated, in part, that 
``The petition date of TA-W-64,725 is December 17, 2008. The petition 
date of TA-W-72,673 is October 23, 2009. Because the investigation 
periods in the two cases are different, the findings in TA-W-64,725 
cannot be used as the basis for a certification of TA-W-72,673.'' AAR 
117. The Department's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration in WEATHER SHIELD II was published in 
the Federal Register on September 21, 2009 (75 FR 57519). AAR 120.
    In response to the Plaintiff's complaint filed with the USCIT, 
dated October 8, 2009, regarding WEATHER SHIELD II, the Department 
filed an administrative record that consisted of the materials upon 
which the

[[Page 35028]]

Department relied in making its determination with regards to the 
subject worker group's eligibility to apply for TAA. However, this 
record did not include documents that were considered in WEATHER SHIELD 
I, and which were also considered during the investigation of WEATHER 
SHIELD II as the basis for this determination.
    In Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record, 
dated March 30, 2011, Plaintiffs indicated that the record did not 
include documentation in support of the negative determination (``the 
administrative record does not include any supporting questionnaire 
responses or source documents for Weather Shield's 2008 sales, nor does 
it provide any explanation for the 2009 data. The administrative record 
also does not include any customer list or any list of the customers to 
whom Labor issued questionnaires.'') The materials to which Plaintiffs 
refer were part of the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I (the case also 
referenced in the request for reconsideration).
    The Department's Motion for Voluntary Remand stated that the 
Department sought to complete the administrative record by adding 
material received during the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I that was 
considered during the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD II and, 
therefore, should have been included in the administrative record: the 
customer surveys received during the remand investigation of WEATHER 
SHIELD I; the complete customer list obtained during the remand 
investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I; the Non-Production Questionnaire and 
Confidential Data Request forms received during the initial 
investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I; documents providing the sales 
figures obtained during the remand investigation of WEATHER SHIELD; and 
the investigative report from the initial investigation of WEATHER 
SHIELD. The Department also explained in the motion that a remand was 
necessary for the Department to prepare a thorough explanation of how 
it relied on the afore-mentioned documents from the investigation of 
WEATHER SHIELD I and a more detailed factual and/or legal analysis in 
support of the remand determination in WEATHER SHIELD II.
    Consistent with the USCIT's Order, the Department is filing an 
amended administrative record, which includes the following documents:
    1. Forms completed during Weather Shield I: three Confidential Data 
Request (CDR) forms (OMB No. 1205-0342) (AAR 127, 132, 137), and one 
Non-Production Questionnaire (OMB No. 1205-0447) (AAR 122);
    2. E-mail correspondence (dated May 4, 2009) between the Department 
and a Weather Shield company official (AAR 143);
    3. Investigative Report (IR) for Weather Shield I (AAR 145);
    4. Customer list obtained during Weather Shield I* (AAR 209; and
    5. Customer Surveys conducted during Weather Shield I (AAR 149, 
152, 155, 158, 161, 164, 167, 170, 173, 176, 179, 182, 185, 188, 191, 
194, 197, 199, 202).
    *The list is very large, consisting of numerous customers who 
constitute less than one percent of subject firm sales, and has been 
submitted as part of the administrative record via compact disk.
    Understanding the remand investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I places 
the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD II into perspective. Furthermore, a 
comparison of the conditions that existed during the relevant time 
periods of each case and the appropriate regulations sheds light on the 
misconception that the certification issued by the Department in 
WEATHER SHIELD I could be a basis for the Department to issue a 
certification in WEATHER SHIELD II.
    While the subject worker group covered by WEATHER SHIELD I is the 
same as the subject worker group covered by WEATHER SHIELD II, the 
investigations of the subject worker group cover different time periods 
in WEATHER SHIELD I and WEATHER SHIELD II:
    WEATHER SHIELD I--
     Petition date is December 18, 2008.
     The relevant period is calendar year 2008.
     The representative base period is calendar year 2007.
    WEATHER SHIELD II--
     Petition date is October 23, 2009.
     The relevant period is October 2008 through September 
2009.
     The representative base period is October 2007 through 
September 2008.
    Significantly, the relevant period of WEATHER SHIELD I overlaps the 
representative base period in WEATHER SHIELD II by only a few months.

Summary of Remand Investigation of TA-W-64,725 (WEATHER SHIELD I)

    On December 17, 2008, the WEATHER SHIELD I petition for TAA and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) was filed on behalf of 
workers and former workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., 
Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin. AAR 79.
    The Department determined in the initial and reconsideration 
investigations in WEATHER SHIELD I 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. AAR 79-81. A sample survey of the subject firm's major 
declining domestic customers revealed negligible imports of products 
like or directly competitive with those produced by workers at the 
subject firm. AAR 80-81.
    During the remand investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I, the Department 
obtained an extensive customer list from the subject firm and conducted 
a larger sample customer survey to determine whether or not there were 
increased customer imports during the relevant period (calendar year 
2008) of articles like or directly competitive with doors and/or 
windows, when compared to the representative base period (calendar year 
2007). AAR 82-83. The expanded survey constituted 16% of the subject 
firm's declining customers. The expanded customer survey revealed 
increased imports during calendar year 2008 when compared to 2007 
import levels. AAR 83.
    On August 9, 2009, the Department issued a certification in WEATHER 
SHIELD I applicable to 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 August 
9, 2012. AAR 79.
    Following the Department's practice, the WEATHER SHIELD I 
certification covered workers separated in the year preceding the date 
of the petition and continued for two years after the date of 
certification. AAR 84. Under the Department's practice, which is 
consistent with the remedial purposes of the TAA Program, 
certifications usually cover workers separated during at least a three-
year period (beginning with the impact date, as defined in 29 CFR 90.2, 
and ending at the expiration of the two-year period following the 
determination) so that the broadest group of workers at a firm are 
eligible to apply for trade readjustment assistance under Section 
233(a)(2) of the Trade Act, as amended.
    In WEATHER SHIELD I, however, the certification covers a much 
longer period (more than four and a half years) because the 
certification was not issued on remand until August 9, 2009. Had the 
Department issued the certification on April 29, 2009, the 
certification period would have covered December 17, 2007 through April 
29, 2011 (a period of three years and four months).

[[Page 35029]]

Investigation of TA-W-72,673 (WEATHER SHIELD II)

    The petitioners in WEATHER SHIELD II stated no reason for the 
workers' separations other than ``the economy'' (AAR 3, 7) and stated 
in an attachment that the subject firm operated several domestic 
facilities. AAR 4, 8. According to the subject firm, the separations 
were due to the collapse of the domestic housing market and the 
corresponding decreased demand for windows and doors used in 
residential units. AAR 59. A pre-institution screening for duplicative 
petitions revealed that there was a related case: TA-W-64,725. AAR 9.
    The record of the findings of an investigation is summarized in an 
Investigative Report (IR) that is unique to each case. While the 
WEATHER SHIELD I IR (AAR 145-148) did not play a meaningful role in the 
determination of WEATHER SHIELD II, the Department reviewed it in 
consideration of WEATHER SHIELD II because it is a related document. 
Specifically, the WEATHER SHIELD I IR discussed the operations of the 
subject facility in the context of the operations of the subject firm. 
AAR 145. It explained the services that the subject worker group 
supplied during the investigation period for WEATHER SHIELD I which 
were the same as for WEATHER SHIELD II (the investigation period of 
WEATHER SHIELD I and WEATHER SHIELD II overlapped by a few months). AAR 
145. The WEATHER SHIELD I IR summarized the relationships between the 
subject facility and the three Weather Shield production facilities 
that were supported by the subject facility during the investigation 
period. AAR 146-147. The WEATHER SHIELD I IR also clarified the 
different articles produced at the three production facilities. AAR 
146-147. The WEATHER SHIELD I IR also described the difference between 
the two Medford, Wisconsin facilities and the services supplied by the 
subject worker group at the subject facility. AAR 146-147.
    The remand investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I and the initial 
investigation of WEATHER SHIELD II were conducted concurrently because 
the Complaint in WEATHER SHIELD I was filed with the USCIT on January 
19, 2010 (two and half months after the petitioners filed WEATHER 
SHIELD II on October 26, 2009). Therefore, the Department reviewed 
material obtained during the investigations of WEATHER SHIELD I as well 
as material obtained during the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD II in 
determining whether the subject worker group in WEATHER SHIELD II met 
the eligibility criteria set forth in TGAAA.
    The Department reviewed material obtained during the investigations 
of WEATHER SHIELD I during the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD II. 
Specifically, the Department reviewed the Non-Production Questionnaire 
(AAR 22, 122) and three Confidential Data Request (CDR) forms submitted 
during the initial investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I (AAR 127-142), an 
e-mail exchange (dated May 4, 2009) between the Department and a 
Weather Shield official (AAR 143-144); the investigative report for the 
initial investigation (AAR 145-148); the customer list obtained during 
the remand investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I (AAR 209); and the results 
of the expanded customer survey conducted during the remand 
investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I. AAR 149-208.
    During the investigation of the WEATHER SHIELD II petition, the 
subject firm confirmed that a significant number or proportion of the 
workers at the subject facility had been totally or partially separated 
from employment, or threatened with such separation. AAR 59. As such, 
the Department determined that Section 222(a)(1) has been satisfied and 
continued its investigation to determine whether either Section 
222(a)(2)(A) or Section 222(a)(2)(B) have been met.
    The Department determined, based on information provided by the 
subject firm during WEATHER SHIELD II, that there was not shift to a 
foreign country or acquisition from a foreign country by the subject 
firm in the supply of services like or directly competitive with those 
supplied by the subject worker group. AAR 51, 59. Therefore, the 
Department determined that Section 222(a)(2)(B) has not been satisfied 
and continued its investigation to determine whether Section 
222(a)(2)(A) was met.
    Section 222(a)(2)(A) has two criteria: (i) That sales or 
production, or both, at the workers' firm must have decreased 
absolutely and (ii) that there have been increased imports.
    The Department determined that sales and production at the subject 
firm declined during the relevant period of the WEATHER SHIELD II 
investigation based in its review of material from the WEATHER SHIELD I 
investigation, as follows.
    The Department reviewed the Non-Production Questionnaire (NPQ) 
supplied in the initial investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I. AAR 22, 122. 
The NPQ confirmed information supplied during the investigation of 
WEATHER SHIELD II that workers at the subject facility supplied 
services related to administration, human resources, accounting, sales, 
and marketing to three Weather Shield production facilities and that 
workers at the subject facility did not produce an article. AAR 22, 
122.
    Having ascertained that the subject worker group did not produce an 
article, but supplied services in support of production at other 
subject firm facilities and there was no shift to a foreign country by 
the subject firm in the supply of like or directly competitive 
services, the Department investigated whether there had been decreased 
sales and/or production declines and, if so, whether there were 
increased imports (per 29 CFR 90.2) of windows and/or doors (or like or 
directly competitive articles) by reviewing the CDRs submitted by the 
subject firm during the WEATHER SHIELD I investigation. AAR 127-142. 
The relevant period for the WEATHER SHIELD II investigation is October 
2008 through September 2009, and the representative base period is 
October 2007 through September 2008.
    According to the NPQ submitted during WEATHER SHIELD I (AAR 22, 
122), the subject facility supported three production facilities of the 
subject firm. AAR 24, 123. Therefore, the Department reviewed the three 
CDRs for those facilities (400 Legacy Lane, Park Falls, Wisconsin; 642 
Whelan Avenue, Medford, Wisconsin; and 320 E. Worden Avenue, Ladysmith, 
Wisconsin) which were also submitted during WEATHER SHIELD I (AAR 127-
142) to determine whether or not there were sales and/or production 
declines.
    The afore-mentioned CDRs revealed that the Park Falls, Wisconsin 
facility produced doors (AAR 137), while both the Ladysmith, Wisconsin 
facility (AAR 127) and the Medford, Wisconsin facility (AAR 132) 
produced windows. The CDRs also revealed that all three facilities shut 
down in January 2009. AAR 127, 132, 137. As such, the Department 
determined that subject firm production had declined absolutely.
    Information obtained from the subject firm during Weather Shield II 
consisted of only sales data for calendar 2009 (AAR 51, 52) (as noted 
above, production at the three subject firm facilities supported by the 
subject worker group had ceased in January 2009). AAR 127, 132, 137. In 
order to determine whether subject firm sales had declined, the 
Department reviewed existing material in WEATHER SHIELD I for sales 
figures for the representative base period for WEATHER SHIELD II: A

[[Page 35030]]

May 4, 2009 e-mail obtained during the investigation of WEATHER SHIELD 
I that contained subject firm sales figures for calendar year 2008. AAR 
143. By comparing the sales data from WEATHER SHIELD I with the sales 
data from WEATHER SHIELD II, the Department was able to ascertain that 
subject firm sales declined during 2009 from 2008 levels.
    Based on information obtained from the afore-mentioned WEATHER 
SHIELD I material (IR [AAR 145], NPQ [AAR 22, 122], CDRs [AAR 127-142], 
and the May 4, 2009 e-mail [AAR 143]), the Department determined that 
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) had been met and continued its investigation to 
determine whether Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) was met.
    The Department determined that, for the relevant period of WEATHER 
SHIELD II, unlike the earlier relevant period for the WEATHER SHIELD I 
investigation, the requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) were not 
met, based on its review of material from the WEATHER SHIELD I 
investigation, as follows.
    The Department considered the complete customer list obtained 
during WEATHER SHIELD I (AAR 209) and the results of the customer 
surveys conducted during the remand investigation of WEATHER SHIELD I. 
AAR 149-208.
    The Department used the customer list provided during the WEATHER 
SHIELD I remand investigation (AAR 209) to conduct the customer survey 
in WEATHER SHIELD II. AAR 29-48. The Department surveyed only those 
customers with sales data for the year 2009, the relevant time period 
for the WEATHER SHIELD II investigation. AAR 29-48, 62-63. The WEATHER 
SHIELD II customers surveyed consisted of 16% of subject firm sales in 
2008 and 13% of subject firm sales in 2009. AAR 53-56, 62-63.
    The WEATHER SHIELD II investigation customer survey responses were 
combined with the responses of the same customers received during the 
WEATHER SHIELD I remand investigation for year 2008 to conduct a 
comparative analysis. AAR 53-56, 61-63. As noted above, the Department 
had conducted an expansive sample customer survey in WEATHER SHIELD I 
approximately three months before administering the customer survey for 
WEATHER SHIELD II. The analysis of overall subject firm sales, 
purchases made by the surveyed customers, and direct and indirect 
imports, did not reveal increased imports, per 29 CFR 90.2, by the 
surveyed customers. AAR 53-56, 61-63.
    Further, as noted in the initial WEATHER SHIELD II determination, 
U.S. aggregate imports of metal/wood doors and windows (and like or 
directly competitive articles) declined from 2008 to 2009. AAR 57-58. 
As noted above, most of the customers on the customer list that was 
submitted in WEATHER SHIELD I (AAR 209) constituted a very small 
portion of the subject firm's sales; therefore, the results of an 
analysis of aggregate data of like or directly competitive articles is 
relevant because it is representative of the import activity of the 
subject firm's customer base during the relevant period of WEATHER 
SHIELD II.
    The Department's determination is not inconsistent with the four 
affirmative TAA decisions attached to Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement 
the Administrative Record before the USCIT in Court No. 10-00299. 
Workers of Springs Window Fashions, LLC (TA-W-73,575) and Simpson Door 
Company (TA-W-65,585) were certified as eligible to apply for TAA based 
in part on the investigative findings that Criterion 2 was met because 
their respective companies shifted production of window coverings and 
components, and solid wood stile and rail doors to Mexico and Canada, 
respectively, during the relevant periods of those investigations. 
Workers of Jeld-Wen Premium Doors (TA-W-71,644) and Woodgrain 
Millworks, Inc. (TA-W-65,461), were certified as eligible to apply for 
TAA based in part on the investigative findings that Criterion 2 was 
met because of increased imports or increased reliance on imported 
articles like or directly competitive with the articles produced by 
those companies. Those certifications involved different relevant 
periods.
    Because increased imports is defined by 29 CFR 90.2, and the date 
of the petition determines the relevant period and the representative 
base period, facts that were the basis for certifications involving 
earlier-filed petitions cannot be the basis for a certification in 
WEATHER SHIELD II, just as the certification in WEATHER SHIELD I cannot 
be the basis for a certification in WEATHER SHIELD II.
    Additionally, with respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 
2272(c), the investigation revealed that the workers could not be 
certified as adversely affected secondary workers because the subject 
firm did not produce an article or supply a service that was used by a 
firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an article or 
supply of a service that was the basis for TAA certification.
    Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(f) of 
the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(f), have not been met because the subject firm 
has not been identified by name in an affirmative finding of injury by 
the International Trade Commission.
    Based on the afore-mentioned findings, the Department determined 
that the subject worker group was not eligible to apply for TAA.

Conclusion

    After careful review of material consisting of the complete 
administrative record, I determine that workers of Weather Shield 
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin, who supply 
corporate office support services for metal/wood windows and doors, are 
denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.

    Signed in Washington, DC on this 3rd day of June, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-14818 Filed 6-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P