Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. Corporate Office, Medford, WI; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 70761-70765 [2011-29397]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices
will further relate, as appropriate, to the
determination of the date on which total
or partial separations began or
threatened to begin and the subdivision
of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons
showing a substantial interest in the
subject matter of the investigations may
request a public hearing, provided such
request is filed in writing with the
Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than November 25, 2011.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments regarding the
subject matter of the investigations to
the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than November 25, 2011.
The petitions filed in this case are
available for inspection at the Office of
70761
the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, Employment and Training
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of
October 2011.
Michael Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
APPENDIX—17 TAA PETITIONS INSTITUTED BETWEEN 10/17/11 AND 10/21/11
TA–W
Subject firm
(petitioners)
Location
80520 ................
80521 ................
Positronic Industries, Inc. (Workers) ....................................
Billhorn Converters, LLC, Northwest Division (State/OneStop).
LA Darling Company LLC (Workers) ...................................
Siemens Water Technologies (Company) ...........................
Townsends (Workers) ..........................................................
Long Elevator & Machine Co Inc. (Workers) .......................
BASF Corporation (Company) .............................................
MAHLE Engine Components USA, Inc. (Company) ............
Timbron International, Inc. (State/One-Stop) .......................
Wheatland Tube Company (Union) ......................................
The Timken Company (Workers) .........................................
PPG, Working on-site at General Motors—Shreveport
(State/One-Stop).
Advanced Energy (State/One-Stop) .....................................
Champion Photochemical Inc. (Company) ...........................
UAW Local 2166 (State/One-Stop) ......................................
Cooper Bussmann (Company) .............................................
Fortis Plastics (State/One-Stop) ...........................................
Mount Vernon, MO ...............
Kalama, WA ..........................
10/17/11
10/17/11
10/13/11
10/12/11
Paragould, AR .......................
Vineland, NJ ..........................
Mocksville, NC ......................
Riverton, IL ............................
Belvidere, NJ .........................
Trumbull, CT .........................
Stockton, CA .........................
Sharon, PA ............................
Altavista, VA ..........................
Shreveport, LA ......................
10/17/11
10/17/11
10/17/11
10/17/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/14/11
10/14/11
10/07/11
10/12/11
10/11/11
10/17/11
10/17/11
10/17/11
10/18/11
10/18/11
Fort Collins, CO ....................
Rochester, NY .......................
Shreveport, LA ......................
Goldsboro, NC ......................
Fort Smith, AR ......................
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/20/11
10/20/11
10/20/11
10/18/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
10/19/11
80522
80523
80524
80525
80526
80527
80528
80529
80530
80531
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
80532
80533
80534
80535
80536
................
................
................
................
................
Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc.
Corporate Office, Medford, WI; Notice
of Negative Determination on Remand
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office,
Medford, Wisconsin (subject facility).
AR 598. Workers at the subject facility
(subject worker group) supply
administrative support services related
to the production of doors and windows
which takes place at various domestic
locations of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc. (subject firm). The
Department’s notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45163). AR
611.
On August 3, 2011, the United States
Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the Department of Labor’s
request for voluntary remand to conduct
further investigation and to submit a
new administrative record in Former
Employees of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States
Secretary of Labor (Court No. 10–00299)
that contains information obtained
during both the previous investigations
and the latest investigation of this
matter.
On July 16, 2010, 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
Background—Petition TA–W–64,725
On December 17, 2008, workers filed
a petition for TAA and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
on behalf of workers and former workers
of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc.,
Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin
(petition TA–W–64,725—hereafter
referred to as Weather Shield I). AR 1,
4, 6.
The Department determined in the
initial and reconsideration
investigations in Weather Shield I that
the subject firm did not shift production
to a foreign country and 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. AR
[FR Doc. 2011–29396 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[TA–W–72,673]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Date of
institution
Date of
petition
17, 27, 69, 75. A sample survey of the
subject firm’s declining customers
conducted both in the initial and
administrative reconsideration
investigations revealed negligible
imports of products like or directly
competitive with those produced by
workers at the subject firm. AR 42, 44,
45, 51, 54, 64, 69, 104, 105.
On January 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a
complaint with the USCIT in which
they alleged that their separations were
attributable to increased customer
imports. In order to conduct a further
investigation to address Plaintiff
allegations, the Department requested a
voluntary remand. During that remand
investigation, the Department obtained a
list of all the customers of the subject
firm (AR 145) and conducted a larger
sample customer survey to determine
whether or not there were increased
customer imports during the relevant
time period (calendar years 2007 and
2008) of articles like or directly
competitive with doors and/or
windows. AR 279–530. The survey
revealed that customer imports had
increased during the relevant time
period. AR 1345.
Accordingly, the Department issued a
Revised Determination on Remand on
August 9, 2010, applicable to workers at
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
70762
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices
the subject facility who became totally
or partially separated from employment
on or after December 17, 2007, through
August 9, 2012, which granted
certification of eligibility to apply for
TAA and ATAA benefits. Under the
Department’s practice, certifications
typically cover workers separated on or
after the impact date, as defined in 29
CFR 90.2, and ending at the expiration
of the two-year period following the
determination. Therefore, 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. The
Department’s Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand was
published in the Federal Register on
August 23, 2010 (75 FR 51851). AR
1436.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Initial Investigation—Petition TA–W–
72,673
On October 23, 2009, workers filed a
petition for TAA on behalf of workers
and former workers of Weather Shield
Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office,
Medford, Wisconsin (petition TA–W–
72,673—hereafter referred to as Weather
Shield II). AR 534, 539. The petitioners
in Weather Shield II stated on the
petition that worker separations were
due to ‘‘the economy’’ and that the
subject firm operated several domestic
facilities and sought certification under
the expanded certification requirements
for TAA under the TAA program as
amended by the Trade and
Globalization Act Adjustment
Assistance Act of 2009 which provided
a higher level of benefits for certified
workers.
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. AR
585, 593. 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. AR 585, 593, 594.
The investigation also revealed that
there was not a shift to or acquisition
from a foreign country by the subject
firm in the supply of services like or
directly competitive with the
administrative support services
supplied by the subject worker group.
AR 585, 593, 594. Therefore, the
Department proceeded with a customer
survey to determine if the worker
separations were attributable to
increased imports.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
The Department surveyed the subject
firm’s major declining customers
regarding their purchases of doors and/
or windows in the relevant period. AR
562–584. 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. AR 587. The
Department determined that, for the
relevant period of the Weather Shield II
petition, the separations in the subject
worker group were not related to an
increase in imports.
The customers selected for the survey
were chosen based on the complete
customer list obtained in the
investigation of Weather Shield I and
the results of the customer surveys
conducted during that investigation. AR
145. Reviewing information already on
record enabled the Department to select
a representative sample of customers,
the data of which was sufficient to reach
the initial determination on the petition.
Selecting which customers to survey
based on the survey results collected in
Weather Shield I provided more clarity
regarding the approximate size of the
surveyed customers as the size of each
customer was not specified by the
subject firm. AR 145, 279–530, 1345.
In addition, data collected on U.S.
aggregate imports of articles like or
directly competitive with those
produced by the subject firm showed a
decline between 2008 and 2009. AR
591, 592.
Based on this information, 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). AR 611.
Reconsideration Investigation—Petition
TA–W–72,673
By application dated August 23, 2010,
a petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration on the Department’s
negative determination. AR 612, 620,
627, 635, 642. In the application, the
petitioner stated that the factual
circumstances in TA–W–72,673 are the
same as in petition TA–W–64,725 and
that the current petition should
therefore also be certified.
Because the petitioner did not supply
facts not previously considered, provide
documentation to show that the
determination was erroneous, or show
that there was a misinterpretation of
facts or the law, the Department
determined that administrative
reconsideration could not be granted, in
accordance with 29 CFR 90.18(c), and
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
issued a Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the subject
worker group on September 10, 2010.
AR 649.
The Department explained that
because the petition date of TA–W–
64,725 is December 17, 2008 and the
petition date of TA–W–72,673 is
October 23, 2009, the investigation
periods in the two cases are different
and that the findings in TA–W–64,725
cannot be used as the basis for
certification of TA–W–72,673. The
Department’s Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration was published in
the Federal Register on September 21,
2010 (75 FR 57519). AR 653.
Remand Investigation—Petition TA–W–
72,673
The petitioners then 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 not justified,
for the same reasons that the application
for administrative reconsideration was
not granted, and filed an administrative
record that consisted 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.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs pointed to
TAA certifications of other door and
window manufacturers, and provided
lists of the ‘‘Top 100 Window
Manufacturers’’ and of door and
window dealers with which the subject
firm competed. In addition, the
Plaintiffs indicated that the record was
missing material that was collected in
the Weather Shield I initial and remand
investigations and that was considered
in the Weather Shield II investigation.
On May 2, 2011, the Department filed
a Motion for Voluntary Remand in
which it sought to supplement the
administrative record with material that
was received during the investigation of
Weather Shield I and to provide a
thorough explanation as to how it relied
on the omitted documents to make its
determination.
The Department amended the
administrative record on June 3, 2011 to
include documents from the Weather
Shield I initial and remand
investigations that supported the
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices
determination in Weather Shield II.
Namely, the Department added to the
record the customer surveys received
during the remand investigation; the
complete customer list obtained during
the remand investigation; the ‘‘NonProduction Questionnaire’’ (OMB No.
1205–0447) and ‘‘Confidential Data
Request’’ forms (OMB No. 1205–0342)
received during the initial investigation;
email correspondence in which the
subject firm provided to the Department
sales figures during the remand
investigation; and the Department’s
investigative report from the initial
investigation. AR 655, 657, 662, 667,
673, 675. The Department also
supplemented the record with an
explanation regarding the relevance of
these documents. AR 740.
The record shows that 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, the
petition date is December 18, 2008,
making the relevant period calendar
year 2008 and the representative base
period calendar year 2007. In Weather
Shield II, the petition date is October 23,
2009, making the relevant period
October 2008 through September 2009
and the representative base period
October 2007 through September 2008.
This distinction is important in that
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.’’ (Emphasis added).
The remand investigation of Weather
Shield I and the initial investigation of
Weather Shield II were conducted
concurrently because the USCIT
complaint in Weather Shield I was filed
on January 19, 2010, approximately two
and half months after the petition to the
Department for Weather Shield II was
filed on October 23, 2009. AR 534. AR
Therefore, the Department used some of
the documents already in its possession
that were obtained in the initial and
remand investigations of Weather Shield
I in determining whether the subject
worker group covered under the
Weather Shield II petition met the
eligibility criteria for certification. AR
655, 657, 662, 667, 673, 675.
Because of the different relevant time
periods for each investigation, the
Department considered only
information that could not have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
changed from one set of time periods to
the next. For example, in order to
determine whether subject firm sales
had declined, the Department collected
from the subject firm sales data for
calendar 2009, which was compared to
the 2008 data already on record.
Similarly, as explained above, the
Department used the complete customer
list obtained during the course of the
Weather Shield I remand investigation
to conduct the survey in Weather Shield
II. The Department’s Notice of Amended
Negative Determination was published
in the Federal Register on June 15, 2011
(76 FR 35026). AR 1438.
On July 5, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in Support of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Motion for Judgment on the Agency
Record in which they asked the
Department to conduct further
investigation and apply the same
methodology as in the Weather Shield I
remand investigation in regards to
administering customer surveys and
determining import competition.
On August 3, 2011, the Department
requested a voluntary remand to
complete the administrative record with
all the contents of Weather Shield I, to
reopen the case to conduct further
investigation, and to permit the
Plaintiffs to submit evidence.
On September 2, 2011, the Plaintiffs
submitted additional information in
support of their claims. AR 1023, 1114.
In their letter, the Plaintiffs reiterated
the allegations supplied in the October
8, 2010 USCIT complaint, the March 30,
2011 Motion, and the July 5, 2011
Memorandum and provided information
to show an overlap between Weather
Shield’s customers and those of other
domestic firms that allegedly import
from foreign countries articles like or
directly competitive with doors and/or
windows. AR 1023, 1114. The Plaintiffs
alleged that the subject firm competed
with other U.S. window and door
manufacturers, to the workers of which
the Department granted TAA
certifications, and pointed to possible
import competition between the subject
firm and its competitors. AR 1023, 1114.
The Plaintiffs stated that the
Department should: 1. expand the
record to include data from additional
customers by conducting more surveys,
including surveying all the same
customers that were identified in the
Weather Shield I remand; 2. show that
the surveyed customers account for a
significant percentage of the subject
firm’s sales decline; 3. collect additional
information from one of the customers
that was surveyed in the initial
investigation regarding the information
reported on the survey in order to
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70763
determine whether this customer’s
purchases from other domestic firms
were imported or domestic, and
establish that the decline in sales to this
customer by the subject firm was not
attributable to an increase in imports; 4.
take into consideration the TAA
certifications of alleged competitors
Jeld-Wen Premium Doors, Springs
Window Fashions, Woodgrain
Millworks, and Simpson Door Company
and how the activities of these firms
could have created import competition
for the subject firm; 5. examine the
competition that occurs between the
‘‘Top 100 Window Manufacturers’’ and
look for overlapping customers between
Weather Shield and its competitors,
especially those that employed TAA
certified worker groups. AR 1023, 1114.
The Weather Shield I petition was
filed under the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Reform Act of 2002
requirements for TAA certification
whereas the Weather Shield II petition
was filed under the Trade and
Globalization Adjustment Assistance
Act of 2009 requirements. Under the
2009 amendments, the group eligibility
requirements for workers of a Firm
under Section 222(a) of 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
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
70764
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
Pursuant to the August 3, 2011
remand, the Department collected
additional information from the subject
firm and the Plaintiffs, conducted an
expanded customer survey, and
collected aggregate U.S. import data
pertaining to articles like or directly
competitive with those produced at the
subject firm.
The Department also confirmed
previously collected information from
the subject firm which revealed updated
information regarding the shutdown of
production facilities and sales figures
during the relevant period. The
corrected information revealed that the
subject firm production facilities in Park
Falls, Wisconsin, Ladysmith,
Wisconsin, and Medford, Wisconsin
had not shut down production in early
2009, as previously stated by the subject
firm in the initial investigation of
Weather Shield I. AR 779.
Additionally, the new information
revealed that sales of the subject firm
increased in the relevant time period.
AR 812. Nonetheless, the Department
conducted a customer survey to
determine whether possible declines in
production at the subject firm had been
caused by an increase in import
competition. AR 823–990, 1243–1324,
1325–1344.
The Department surveyed a total of 16
of the subject firm’s customers regarding
their purchases of doors and/or
windows in 2008 and 2009. AR 823–
996, 1254–1312, 1326–1341. The survey
selection was based on information
provided by the subject firm pertaining
to its top customers during the relevant
time period. AR 145, 785. The survey
also included the three customers that
were surveyed in the initial
investigation of Weather Shield II. AR
823, 1243, 1313–1324, 1325, 1342, 1343.
The data collected from the 19
surveyed customers demonstrated that
imports declined at a much faster rate
than purchases made from the subject
firm and other domestic firms between
2009 and the representative base period.
AR 1344. Although purchases from the
subject firm by these customers
declined, because overall subject firm
sales increased in the relevant time
period, these customers did not account
for any sales declines at the subject firm.
AR 1344.
The Department collected U.S.
aggregate import data of wood window
and door manufacturing (NAICS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
321911) and metal window and door
manufacturing (NAICS 332321) which
showed an overall decrease in imports.
The first group of data for wood window
and door manufacturing shows a
decline of 36 percent from 2008 to 2009
(imports only) and 10 percent (imports
to shipments) in the relevant time
period. The second group of data for
metal window and door manufacturing
shows a decline of 34 percent (imports
only) and nine percent (imports to
shipments) in the relevant time period.
AR 1346.
The Plaintiffs also asked the
Department to determine whether the
subject firm may have competed with
imported doors and/or windows of
other domestic suppliers of a specific
customer of the subject firm that was
surveyed in the initial investigation. AR
1023, 1114. The Department solicited
information from this customer
regarding the origin of the products it
purchases from other domestic firms.
AR 823–852, 997. The customer
explained that it does not track import
information on products purchased
from domestic suppliers. AR 823–852.
The Department conducted further
investigation regarding the domestic
suppliers of this customer to determine
if any of the suppliers employed
workers that had been certified eligible
for TAA benefits in the relevant time
period. AR 998. The investigation
revealed that this customer had one
supplier that sold products like or
directly competitive with those
produced by the subject firm whose
workers had been certified eligible for
TAA. AR 998.
The Department also conducted a
search to reveal how many of the firms
on the ‘‘Top 100 Window
Manufacturers’’ list provided by the
Plaintiffs employed worker groups that
were certified for TAA in the relevant
time period. AR 1354. The search
revealed that only six firms (nine
locations total) employed worker groups
that had been certified eligible to apply
for TAA. AR 1354. Out of the nine
locations, the workers of two locations
received TAA certifications due to
increased imports during the relevant
time period (Jeld-Wen Premium Doors,
Oshwosh, WI, TA–W–71,644; certified
for TAA on July 21, 2009 and
Woodgrain Millworks, Inc., Nampa, ID,
TA–W–63,263; certified for TAA on
May 9, 2009). AR 1354. Two
certifications were granted based on
shifts in production abroad, three for
increased imports that took place prior
to the relevant time period of this
investigation, one for imports of an
article not like or directly competitive
with the articles produced at the subject
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
firm, and one on secondary basis. AR
1354.
For each of the two cases above that
received a TAA certification, Jeld-Wen
Premium Doors and Woodgrain
Millworks, Inc., the Department
compared the customer lists provided
by each of these firms to that provided
by the subject firm. The comparison
revealed that these alleged competitors
and the subject firm do not have any
customers in common. AR 1363–1431.
Therefore, the Department could not
verify the Plaintiffs’ claim that the
subject firm and the alleged competitors
directly competed in the same markets
and had no basis for finding that these
firms competed in the same market area.
Additionally, the Department
contacted an alleged competitor of the
subject firm, Simpson Door Company, to
confirm the Plaintiffs’ claims that this
firm shut down domestic operations due
to increased import competition. AR
1431A. According to the information
provided, this firm has not ceased
domestic production of doors and/or
windows. AR 1431A. The Department
also collected information regarding this
firm’s major domestic customers. AR
1431A. After comparing the customer
list to that provided by the subject firm,
it was revealed that the two firms only
have one customer in common where
articles from the two firms competed
directly. AR 1431A. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs’ claim that the subject firm
competed with Simpson Door
Company’s imported products during
the relevant time period is not justified.
Additionally, the investigation
revealed that although workers at
Springs Window Fashions, LLC,
Montgomery, PA (TA–W–62,704) were
certified for TAA in the relevant time
period, this firm does not produce
articles like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm so it
could not have posed competition. AR
1350.
Based on a careful review of
previously submitted information and
new information obtained during the
remand investigation, the Department
finds that worker separations at the
subject firm were not caused by an
increased reliance on imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those
produced by the subject firm. Therefore,
the Department reaffirms that the
petitioning workers have not met the
eligibility criteria of Section 222(c) 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
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices
workers and former workers of Weather
Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate
Office, Medford, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 31st day
of October, 2011
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–29397 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
Advisory Committee on Presidential
Library-Foundation Partnerships
National Archives and Records
Administration.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) announces a
meeting of the Advisory Committee on
Presidential Library-Foundation
Partnerships. The meeting will be held
to discuss the National Archives and
Records Administration budget for
Presidential Libraries, program activities
at the Presidential Libraries, and the
status of the Agency’s reorganization
and transformation.
SUMMARY:
The meeting will be held on
December 2, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 12
noon.
DATES:
The Ronald Reagan
Presidential Library and Museum, 40
Presidential Drive, Simi Valley, CA
93065.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Donius, Acting Director, Office of
Presidential Libraries, at the National
Archives and Records Administration,
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park,
Maryland 20740, telephone number
(301) 837–3250. Contact the Presidential
Libraries staff at
denise.lebeck@nara.gov.
The
meeting will be open to the public.
Parking is available.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: November 8, 2011.
Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–29480 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND HUMANITIES
National Endowment for the Arts;
Submission of OMB Review: Comment
Request
The National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) has submitted the following
public information collection request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval
in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 [Pub. L. 104–13,
44 U.S.C. Chapter 35]. Copies of the ICR,
with applicable supporting
documentation, may be obtained by
contacting Sunil Iyengar via telephone
at (202) 682–5654 (this is not a toll-free
number) or email at
research@arts.endow.gov. Individuals
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TTY/TDD) may call (202)
682–5496 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
Comments should be sent to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the
National Endowment for the Arts, Office
of Management and Budget, Room
10235, Washington, DC 20503, (202)
395–7316, within 30 days from the date
of this publication in the Federal
Register.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) is particularly interested in
comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques, or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: National Endowment for the
Arts.
Title: General Social Survey Arts
Supplement.
OMB Number: New.
Frequency: Biennial.
Affected Public: American adults.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
2,830.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70765
Estimated Time per Respondent: 3.5
minutes.
Total Burden Hours: 165 hours.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: 0.
Total Annual Costs (Operating/
Maintaining Systems or Purchasing
Services): 0.
This request is for clearance of an arts
supplement for the 2012 General Social
Survey (GSS), to be conducted by the
National Opinion Research Center. The
supplement will include questions
about self-reported motivations and
barriers associated with attending
selected art activities. The results will
help to address an existing research gap
of why Americans choose to attend—or
not attend—activities such as visual arts
exhibits or music, dance, or theater
performances. These data will
supplement the data collected by the
Survey of Public Participation in the
Arts, which was not designed to collect
this information. The GSS is one of the
most cited and recognized sources of
information in the social sciences. The
data will be publicly available and the
basis for a range of NEA reports and
independent research publications.
Addresses: Sunil Iyengar, National
Endowment for the Arts, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 616,
Washington, DC 20506–0001, telephone
(202) 682–5654 (this is not a toll-free
number), fax (202) 682–5677.
Dated: November 9, 2011.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations,
National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2011–29415 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537–01–P
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Meetings of Humanities Panel
The National Endowment for
the Humanities, National Foundation on
the Arts and the Humanities.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), notice is
hereby given that the following
meetings of Humanities Panels will be
held at the Old Post Office, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lisette Voyatzis, Advisory Committee
Management Officer, National
Endowment for the Humanities,
Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202)
606–8322. Hearing-impaired individuals
are advised that information on this
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70761-70765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29397]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-72,673]
Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. Corporate Office, Medford, WI;
Notice of Negative Determination on Remand
On August 3, 2011, the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand
to conduct further investigation and to submit a new administrative
record in Former Employees of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. v.
United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 10-00299) that contains
information obtained during both the previous investigations and the
latest investigation of this matter.
On July 16, 2010, 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). AR 598. Workers at the subject facility
(subject worker group) supply administrative support services related
to the production of doors and windows which takes place at various
domestic locations of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. (subject
firm). The Department's notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45163). AR 611.
Background--Petition TA-W-64,725
On December 17, 2008, workers filed a petition for TAA and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and
former workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office,
Medford, Wisconsin (petition TA-W-64,725--hereafter referred to as
Weather Shield I). AR 1, 4, 6.
The Department determined in the initial and reconsideration
investigations in Weather Shield I that the subject firm did not shift
production to a foreign country and 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.
AR 17, 27, 69, 75. A sample survey of the subject firm's declining
customers conducted both in the initial and administrative
reconsideration investigations revealed negligible imports of products
like or directly competitive with those produced by workers at the
subject firm. AR 42, 44, 45, 51, 54, 64, 69, 104, 105.
On January 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the USCIT in
which they alleged that their separations were attributable to
increased customer imports. In order to conduct a further investigation
to address Plaintiff allegations, the Department requested a voluntary
remand. During that remand investigation, the Department obtained a
list of all the customers of the subject firm (AR 145) and conducted a
larger sample customer survey to determine whether or not there were
increased customer imports during the relevant time period (calendar
years 2007 and 2008) of articles like or directly competitive with
doors and/or windows. AR 279-530. The survey revealed that customer
imports had increased during the relevant time period. AR 1345.
Accordingly, the Department issued a Revised Determination on
Remand on August 9, 2010, applicable to workers at
[[Page 70762]]
the subject facility who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after December 17, 2007, through August 9, 2012, which
granted certification of eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA
benefits. Under the Department's practice, certifications typically
cover workers separated on or after the impact date, as defined in 29
CFR 90.2, and ending at the expiration of the two-year period following
the determination. Therefore, 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.
The Department's Notice of Revised Determination on Remand was
published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2010 (75 FR 51851). AR
1436.
Initial Investigation--Petition TA-W-72,673
On October 23, 2009, workers filed a petition for TAA on behalf of
workers and former workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc.,
Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin (petition TA-W-72,673--hereafter
referred to as Weather Shield II). AR 534, 539. The petitioners in
Weather Shield II stated on the petition that worker separations were
due to ``the economy'' and that the subject firm operated several
domestic facilities and sought certification under the expanded
certification requirements for TAA under the TAA program as amended by
the Trade and Globalization Act Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 which
provided a higher level of benefits for certified workers.
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. AR 585, 593.
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. AR 585, 593, 594.
The investigation also revealed that there was not a shift to or
acquisition from a foreign country by the subject firm in the supply of
services like or directly competitive with the administrative support
services supplied by the subject worker group. AR 585, 593, 594.
Therefore, the Department proceeded with a customer survey to determine
if the worker separations were attributable to increased imports.
The Department surveyed the subject firm's major declining
customers regarding their purchases of doors and/or windows in the
relevant period. AR 562-584. 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. AR 587. The
Department determined that, for the relevant period of the Weather
Shield II petition, the separations in the subject worker group were
not related to an increase in imports.
The customers selected for the survey were chosen based on the
complete customer list obtained in the investigation of Weather Shield
I and the results of the customer surveys conducted during that
investigation. AR 145. Reviewing information already on record enabled
the Department to select a representative sample of customers, the data
of which was sufficient to reach the initial determination on the
petition. Selecting which customers to survey based on the survey
results collected in Weather Shield I provided more clarity regarding
the approximate size of the surveyed customers as the size of each
customer was not specified by the subject firm. AR 145, 279-530, 1345.
In addition, data collected on U.S. aggregate imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm
showed a decline between 2008 and 2009. AR 591, 592.
Based on this information, 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). AR 611.
Reconsideration Investigation--Petition TA-W-72,673
By application dated August 23, 2010, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration on the Department's negative
determination. AR 612, 620, 627, 635, 642. In the application, the
petitioner stated that the factual circumstances in TA-W-72,673 are the
same as in petition TA-W-64,725 and that the current petition should
therefore also be certified.
Because the petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered, provide documentation to show that the determination was
erroneous, or show that there was a misinterpretation of facts or the
law, the Department determined that administrative reconsideration
could not be granted, in accordance with 29 CFR 90.18(c), and issued a
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the subject worker group on September 10, 2010. AR
649.
The Department explained that because the petition date of TA-W-
64,725 is December 17, 2008 and the petition date of TA-W-72,673 is
October 23, 2009, the investigation periods in the two cases are
different and that the findings in TA-W-64,725 cannot be used as the
basis for certification of TA-W-72,673. The Department's Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2010 (75 FR 57519).
AR 653.
Remand Investigation--Petition TA-W-72,673
The petitioners then 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 not justified, for the same
reasons that the application for administrative reconsideration was not
granted, and filed an administrative record that consisted 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. Specifically, the Plaintiffs pointed to TAA
certifications of other door and window manufacturers, and provided
lists of the ``Top 100 Window Manufacturers'' and of door and window
dealers with which the subject firm competed. In addition, the
Plaintiffs indicated that the record was missing material that was
collected in the Weather Shield I initial and remand investigations and
that was considered in the Weather Shield II investigation.
On May 2, 2011, the Department filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand
in which it sought to supplement the administrative record with
material that was received during the investigation of Weather Shield I
and to provide a thorough explanation as to how it relied on the
omitted documents to make its determination.
The Department amended the administrative record on June 3, 2011 to
include documents from the Weather Shield I initial and remand
investigations that supported the
[[Page 70763]]
determination in Weather Shield II. Namely, the Department added to the
record the customer surveys received during the remand investigation;
the complete customer list obtained during the remand investigation;
the ``Non-Production Questionnaire'' (OMB No. 1205-0447) and
``Confidential Data Request'' forms (OMB No. 1205-0342) received during
the initial investigation; email correspondence in which the subject
firm provided to the Department sales figures during the remand
investigation; and the Department's investigative report from the
initial investigation. AR 655, 657, 662, 667, 673, 675. The Department
also supplemented the record with an explanation regarding the
relevance of these documents. AR 740.
The record shows that 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, the petition date is
December 18, 2008, making the relevant period calendar year 2008 and
the representative base period calendar year 2007. In Weather Shield
II, the petition date is October 23, 2009, making the relevant period
October 2008 through September 2009 and the representative base period
October 2007 through September 2008.
This distinction is important in that 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.'' (Emphasis added).
The remand investigation of Weather Shield I and the initial
investigation of Weather Shield II were conducted concurrently because
the USCIT complaint in Weather Shield I was filed on January 19, 2010,
approximately two and half months after the petition to the Department
for Weather Shield II was filed on October 23, 2009. AR 534. AR
Therefore, the Department used some of the documents already in its
possession that were obtained in the initial and remand investigations
of Weather Shield I in determining whether the subject worker group
covered under the Weather Shield II petition met the eligibility
criteria for certification. AR 655, 657, 662, 667, 673, 675.
Because of the different relevant time periods for each
investigation, the Department considered only information that could
not have changed from one set of time periods to the next. For example,
in order to determine whether subject firm sales had declined, the
Department collected from the subject firm sales data for calendar
2009, which was compared to the 2008 data already on record. Similarly,
as explained above, the Department used the complete customer list
obtained during the course of the Weather Shield I remand investigation
to conduct the survey in Weather Shield II. The Department's Notice of
Amended Negative Determination was published in the Federal Register on
June 15, 2011 (76 FR 35026). AR 1438.
On July 5, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Judgment on
the Agency Record in which they asked the Department to conduct further
investigation and apply the same methodology as in the Weather Shield I
remand investigation in regards to administering customer surveys and
determining import competition.
On August 3, 2011, the Department requested a voluntary remand to
complete the administrative record with all the contents of Weather
Shield I, to reopen the case to conduct further investigation, and to
permit the Plaintiffs to submit evidence.
On September 2, 2011, the Plaintiffs submitted additional
information in support of their claims. AR 1023, 1114. In their letter,
the Plaintiffs reiterated the allegations supplied in the October 8,
2010 USCIT complaint, the March 30, 2011 Motion, and the July 5, 2011
Memorandum and provided information to show an overlap between Weather
Shield's customers and those of other domestic firms that allegedly
import from foreign countries articles like or directly competitive
with doors and/or windows. AR 1023, 1114. The Plaintiffs alleged that
the subject firm competed with other U.S. window and door
manufacturers, to the workers of which the Department granted TAA
certifications, and pointed to possible import competition between the
subject firm and its competitors. AR 1023, 1114.
The Plaintiffs stated that the Department should: 1. expand the
record to include data from additional customers by conducting more
surveys, including surveying all the same customers that were
identified in the Weather Shield I remand; 2. show that the surveyed
customers account for a significant percentage of the subject firm's
sales decline; 3. collect additional information from one of the
customers that was surveyed in the initial investigation regarding the
information reported on the survey in order to determine whether this
customer's purchases from other domestic firms were imported or
domestic, and establish that the decline in sales to this customer by
the subject firm was not attributable to an increase in imports; 4.
take into consideration the TAA certifications of alleged competitors
Jeld-Wen Premium Doors, Springs Window Fashions, Woodgrain Millworks,
and Simpson Door Company and how the activities of these firms could
have created import competition for the subject firm; 5. examine the
competition that occurs between the ``Top 100 Window Manufacturers''
and look for overlapping customers between Weather Shield and its
competitors, especially those that employed TAA certified worker
groups. AR 1023, 1114.
The Weather Shield I petition was filed under the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Reform Act of 2002 requirements for TAA certification
whereas the Weather Shield II petition was filed under the Trade and
Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 requirements. Under the
2009 amendments, the group eligibility requirements for workers of a
Firm under Section 222(a) of 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
[[Page 70764]]
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.
Pursuant to the August 3, 2011 remand, the Department collected
additional information from the subject firm and the Plaintiffs,
conducted an expanded customer survey, and collected aggregate U.S.
import data pertaining to articles like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm.
The Department also confirmed previously collected information from
the subject firm which revealed updated information regarding the
shutdown of production facilities and sales figures during the relevant
period. The corrected information revealed that the subject firm
production facilities in Park Falls, Wisconsin, Ladysmith, Wisconsin,
and Medford, Wisconsin had not shut down production in early 2009, as
previously stated by the subject firm in the initial investigation of
Weather Shield I. AR 779.
Additionally, the new information revealed that sales of the
subject firm increased in the relevant time period. AR 812.
Nonetheless, the Department conducted a customer survey to determine
whether possible declines in production at the subject firm had been
caused by an increase in import competition. AR 823-990, 1243-1324,
1325-1344.
The Department surveyed a total of 16 of the subject firm's
customers regarding their purchases of doors and/or windows in 2008 and
2009. AR 823-996, 1254-1312, 1326-1341. The survey selection was based
on information provided by the subject firm pertaining to its top
customers during the relevant time period. AR 145, 785. The survey also
included the three customers that were surveyed in the initial
investigation of Weather Shield II. AR 823, 1243, 1313-1324, 1325,
1342, 1343.
The data collected from the 19 surveyed customers demonstrated that
imports declined at a much faster rate than purchases made from the
subject firm and other domestic firms between 2009 and the
representative base period. AR 1344. Although purchases from the
subject firm by these customers declined, because overall subject firm
sales increased in the relevant time period, these customers did not
account for any sales declines at the subject firm. AR 1344.
The Department collected U.S. aggregate import data of wood window
and door manufacturing (NAICS 321911) and metal window and door
manufacturing (NAICS 332321) which showed an overall decrease in
imports. The first group of data for wood window and door manufacturing
shows a decline of 36 percent from 2008 to 2009 (imports only) and 10
percent (imports to shipments) in the relevant time period. The second
group of data for metal window and door manufacturing shows a decline
of 34 percent (imports only) and nine percent (imports to shipments) in
the relevant time period. AR 1346.
The Plaintiffs also asked the Department to determine whether the
subject firm may have competed with imported doors and/or windows of
other domestic suppliers of a specific customer of the subject firm
that was surveyed in the initial investigation. AR 1023, 1114. The
Department solicited information from this customer regarding the
origin of the products it purchases from other domestic firms. AR 823-
852, 997. The customer explained that it does not track import
information on products purchased from domestic suppliers. AR 823-852.
The Department conducted further investigation regarding the domestic
suppliers of this customer to determine if any of the suppliers
employed workers that had been certified eligible for TAA benefits in
the relevant time period. AR 998. The investigation revealed that this
customer had one supplier that sold products like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject firm whose workers had
been certified eligible for TAA. AR 998.
The Department also conducted a search to reveal how many of the
firms on the ``Top 100 Window Manufacturers'' list provided by the
Plaintiffs employed worker groups that were certified for TAA in the
relevant time period. AR 1354. The search revealed that only six firms
(nine locations total) employed worker groups that had been certified
eligible to apply for TAA. AR 1354. Out of the nine locations, the
workers of two locations received TAA certifications due to increased
imports during the relevant time period (Jeld-Wen Premium Doors,
Oshwosh, WI, TA-W-71,644; certified for TAA on July 21, 2009 and
Woodgrain Millworks, Inc., Nampa, ID, TA-W-63,263; certified for TAA on
May 9, 2009). AR 1354. Two certifications were granted based on shifts
in production abroad, three for increased imports that took place prior
to the relevant time period of this investigation, one for imports of
an article not like or directly competitive with the articles produced
at the subject firm, and one on secondary basis. AR 1354.
For each of the two cases above that received a TAA certification,
Jeld-Wen Premium Doors and Woodgrain Millworks, Inc., the Department
compared the customer lists provided by each of these firms to that
provided by the subject firm. The comparison revealed that these
alleged competitors and the subject firm do not have any customers in
common. AR 1363-1431. Therefore, the Department could not verify the
Plaintiffs' claim that the subject firm and the alleged competitors
directly competed in the same markets and had no basis for finding that
these firms competed in the same market area.
Additionally, the Department contacted an alleged competitor of the
subject firm, Simpson Door Company, to confirm the Plaintiffs' claims
that this firm shut down domestic operations due to increased import
competition. AR 1431A. According to the information provided, this firm
has not ceased domestic production of doors and/or windows. AR 1431A.
The Department also collected information regarding this firm's major
domestic customers. AR 1431A. After comparing the customer list to that
provided by the subject firm, it was revealed that the two firms only
have one customer in common where articles from the two firms competed
directly. AR 1431A. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claim that the subject
firm competed with Simpson Door Company's imported products during the
relevant time period is not justified.
Additionally, the investigation revealed that although workers at
Springs Window Fashions, LLC, Montgomery, PA (TA-W-62,704) were
certified for TAA in the relevant time period, this firm does not
produce articles like or directly competitive with those produced at
the subject firm so it could not have posed competition. AR 1350.
Based on a careful review of previously submitted information and
new information obtained during the remand investigation, the
Department finds that worker separations at the subject firm were not
caused by an increased reliance on imports of articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject firm. Therefore, the
Department reaffirms that the petitioning workers have not met the
eligibility criteria of Section 222(c) 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
[[Page 70765]]
workers and former workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc.,
Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 31st day of October, 2011
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-29397 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
